Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (BOYS, TRANSFERENCE).

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons under 16 years of age who have been transferred from the provinces to the Metropolitan district of London for various kinds of employment since the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1934, came into being; and how many of these persons who have not obtained work on their transfer to London have their expenses paid to enable them to return home?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I regret that I cannot give separate figures for this period for persons under 16 years of age. Since January, 1934, 6,608 boys and 3,339 girls under 18 years of age have been transferred from the areas scheduled under the juvenile transference scheme to employment in the Metropolitan area. Of this number, only five failed to obtain suitable employment and had their expenses paid to enable them to return home.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister inform the House what sort of after-care is given to these boys after they are transferred to London?

Mr. Brown: I could not possibly do that without making an elaborate statement, but, as the House knows from successive Debates, the utmost care is taken.

Mr. Day: If these boys fail to obtain employment, are they sent back home and their expenses paid?

Mr. Brown: They are looked after in the most meticulous fashion.

Oral Answers to Questions — APPROVED SCHOOL (LONGTON BOY).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the correspondence forwarded to him by the hon. Member for Stoke dealing with the decision of the Longton magistrates to send a boy of 10 years of age to an approved school; is he aware that the representative of the education committee advised against the course adopted, and that it was stated that the Home Office advice was against the decision; and what action he intends to take?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): On receipt of the correspondence, I caused inquiries to be made which have only just been completed. I have not yet been able fully to consider the case, but as soon as I have done so I will communicate with the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Sir Arnold Wilson: asked the Home Secretary whether the evidence given to the Stewart and Rolleston Committees on workmen's compensation, so far as not given in confidence, will be published simultaneously with the reports?

Sir S. Hoare: I presume that in referring to the Rolleston Committee my hon. Friend intended to refer to the Rehabilitation Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Malcolm Delevingne. It is only in very exceptional circumstances that the publication of evidence given before Departmental Committees is authorised. While, therefore, any representations that might be received in favour of publication of the evidence before these two committees would be carefully considered, a strong case would have to be shown to justify a departure from the established practice.

Sir A. Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend be willing at least to put this into the Library in order that hon. Members may have an opportunity of judging the nature of the evidence presented?

Sir S. Hoare: I will consider my hon. Friend's request, and see whether that is possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (GUIDANCE CIRCULARS).

Sir A. Wilson: asked the Home Secretary when he proposes to issue Home Office circulars to magistrates so far as still in force in the form of a single consolidated code of guidance for magistrates?

Sir S. Hoare: Many of these circulars are now obsolete and others may become obsolete as the result of proposed alterations in the treatment of offenders which are now under consideration. If effect is given to these proposals in new legislation an explanatory circular will clearly be required and should go far to meet the object which my hon. Friend has in view.

Sir A. Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the great majority of the circulars are, in fact, out of print at the present moment, and that it is quite impossible for justices either to buy them or to be aware of the contents, not only in regard to the treatment of matters dealt with under legislation, but in regard to the actual legislation itself?

Sir S. Hoare: I will keep in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Muff: Will the right hon. Gentleman not overlook sending these circulars to stipendiary magistrates, who need them badly sometimes?

Oral Answers to Questions — LIFT ACCIDENTS.

Sir A. Wilson: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the continued high number of accidents to adolescents and others in charge of or in connection with the repair of lifts; and what progress has been made by his Department in investigating the best manner of dealing with this matter?

Sir S. Hoare: As my hon. Friend is aware, as far as factory premises are concerned, the law on this subject was considerably strengthened by the Factories Act of this year. I presume, however, that he is referring to accidents on non-factory premises. There are no statistics available to show whether such accidents are increasing or decreasing, and, while no doubt a number of these accidents occur to adolescents, my information does not bear out the suggestion which has

been made that these form the majority. Whatever the actual figure may be, I fully sympathise with the desire to reduce it. It will be appreciated that the compulsory safeguarding or expert supervision of such lifts would require legislation, and I am not in a position at present to say more than that I have not lost sight of the prospect of legislation on this subject.

Sir A. Wilson: If I sent my right hon. Friend 200 cuttings dealing with these accidents all over England, showing the completely inadequate nature of the investigation made at the present moment by coroners' courts, will he be so good as to reconsider the matter in the light of the accumulating evidence of these lifts in non-factory premises, which are becoming an increasing danger?

Sir S. Hoare: I should be very glad to have the information, which I would certainly study, and then communicate further with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — ACCIDENT, WEST THURROCK.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary the cause of the accident at West Thurrock, Essex, when a man was killed by a coal grab on Tuesday, 14th December?

Sir S. Hoare: I presume that the hon. Member refers to the accident which occurred on the steamship "Corbridge" on 8th November when Joseph Bird sustained injuries from which he died on 11th December. I am informed that the ship was discharging coal, that Bird, who was employed as a signaller, signalled from the hold to the crane man to lower the grab and then slipped so that the grab came down on his leg. There does not appear to have been any breach of the regulations under the Factory Acts.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRINCE FREDERICK OF PRUSSIA.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Home Secretary the conditions on which Prince Frederick of Prussia has been allowed to take up his residence in this country; and whether he has been granted a permit to work here?

Sir S. Hoare: Prince Frederick has been permitted to occupy for a short period the position of a student employé with a


banking firm. The concession is no more than that accorded to any young foreigner who wishes to acquire some knowledge of business methods in an English firm.

Mr. McGovern: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the statement in the "Daily Express" made by this individual, that he was here to work for from one to two years in Schroeder's Bank, and can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any labour is being displaced, and whether there is different treatment for those who are the victims of the Nazi terror, and those who perpetrate it?

Sir S. Hoare: I have no idea of what the "Daily Express" said on this subject. As far as the facts of the case are concerned, this young man is not displacing any British labour.

Mr. McGovern: May I take it that he has the permit to stay for only three months?

Sir S. Hoare: I said that the permit, in accordance with the usual precedent, is for a short period.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROSECUTION, PONTYBEREM, CARMARTHENSHIRE.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case in which three miners from Pontyberem, Carmarthenshire, were summoned at the petty sessional court at Llanelly recently for taking coal valued at 2s. 11d.; and, as there were no previous convictions against these men, will he consider remitting the fine of £5 imposed on each man?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir; but if the hon. Member thinks there are grounds for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, perhaps he will give me the names of the defendants and a statement of the considerations to which he thinks attention should be given.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the considerable public indignation regarding this matter?

Sir S. Hoare: I cannot possibly express any opinion if I do not know the names or the circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSONS IN CUSTODY (FINGER PRINTS).

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary whether persons who are in police custody before being committed to prison are informed that it is not obligatory for them to have their finger prints taken; and on how many occasions the individual's consent has been withheld in the Metropolitan area for the 12 months ending at the last convenient date?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir; notices to this effect are posted in all police stations and cells in the Metropolitan police district. It is quite exceptional for consent to be withheld, but the exact number of cases could not be ascertained without the examination of a large number of documents.

Mr. Day: In what way is this notification given to juveniles charged at the juvenile courts?

Sir S. Hoare: I cannot say without notice, but I will look into the question.

Mr. Day: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider having this notification brought before the parents of the juveniles concerned?

Sir S. Hoare: I do not know what the circumstances are until I have considered the case.

Mr. McGovern: May I ask whether in all circumstances where finger prints are taken and the individual is afterwards found to have no criminal record and to be not guilty of the offence, the finger prints are then destroyed?

Sir S. Hoare: I could not say without notice.

Mr. Day: May we have an assurance that children's finger prints will not be taken unless the parents have an opportunity of objecting?

Sir S. Hoare: That is really another question, and I cannot answer it in detail without notice.

Mr. Thorne: When these finger prints are taken, can anyone tell whether they are honest or dishonest ones?

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS (PUBLIC UTILITY UNDERTAKINGS).

Sir William Davison: asked the Home Secretary whether he is yet in a


position to make any statement as to the grant of financial assistance by the Government to public utility undertakings in respect of air raid precautions plans?

Sir S. Hoare: The Government have been considering the position of certain essential public utility services, the continued functioning of which is essential in war-time. The exceptional position of the industries concerned places upon them a special responsibility for doing their utmost to ensure continuity of service in all circumstances, including those of war. These industries will have to incur considerable expenditure on the measures necessary to ensure continued functioning in war-time; and the Government have accepted the principle of a contribution towards expenditure of this nature on precautions additional to those falling on industry generally. The actual details of any such arrangement must be worked out in close consultation with the undertakings concerned. These consultations will begin as early as practicable in the New Year.

Sir W. Davison: Can my right hon. Friend inform me whether claims for connecting up services and other such matters will be made direct to his Department, or whether they will be made through the local authorities in the districts in which the particular services are?

Sir S. Hoare: My Department will be communicating with the various public utility services.

Mr. Attlee: What are the particular categories of public utilities to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in his reply?

Sir S. Hoare: I had better have notice of that question, but, speaking generally, water, gas, electricity and certain kinds of transport.

Mr. E. Smith: In view of the fact that a certain number of public utility undertakings may be private enterprise, when details are being worked out will the Home Secretary also consider the interests of relatively small tradesmen, owner-occupiers and people of that sort?

Sir S. Hoare: I made clear in my answer that the public utility services will have to undertake the ordinary obligations undertaken by any ordinary factory or employer. The question deals with the

additional duties that will be imposed upon them as a result of their rather special position.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

TEACHERS' PENSIONS.

Mr. Crawford Greene: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that there is a widespread feeling among teachers serving under the Board that there is discrimination in the treatment of men's and women's war service for pension purposes, in that the male teacher's war service is taken into account in computing the amount of pension due to him whereas the war service of a female teacher is not taken into account in that regard; and whether he will consider taking steps to remedy such discrimination or make a statement to satisfy the service that there has been no unfair discrimination?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not, therefore, appear to arise.

SCHOOL REQUISITES (COST).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many education authorities have made complaints about the increases in the costs of school requisites; and whether the Government are paying any of the extra cost?

Mr. Lindsay: The Board have received no such complaints from local education authorities. If the authorities' expenditure on school requisites is in fact increased in consequence of a rise in prices, the Board's grant to the authorities in respect of such expenditure is proportionately increased.

CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.

Major Whiteley: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many continuation schools of the type envisaged in Section 76, paragraph 3, of the Education Act, 1921, exist; how many are maintained by local authorities and how many by employers; and what is the cost to the Exchequer?

Mr. Lindsay: The number of day continuation schools of the type envisaged in


Section 76, Sub-section (3) of the Education Act, 1921, namely schools attended by young persons at or in connection with the places of their employment, is 12. Of these, five are maintained by local education authorities, and seven by employers. The schools maintained by the employers are aided by direct grant from the Board, the total grant payable for the session 1936–37 being £5,625 inclusive of some grant in respect of evening classes. It is not possible to state the cost to the Exchequer of the five schools maintained by local authorities, as the expenditure on these schools is included in the general expenditure of the authorities on further education.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (OLD AGE PENSIONERS).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Health the number of old age pensioners in receipt of public assistance in the borough of West Ham?

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): The latest date for which figures are available is 1st January last, and the number of old age pensioners in West Ham who were in receipt of poor relief on that date was 2,595.

Oral Answers to Questions — TYPHOID (STEAMSHIP "STRATHAIRD.")

Mr. James Hall: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there was an outbreak of typhoid on board the steamship "Strathaird" on her last homeward voyage in October; whether any passengers suffering from typhoid were landed at Marseilles; whether the members of the crew were inoculated against typhoid; whether the passengers and crew landed in London who were possible contacts were followed up; and whether or not any of them were traced to Croydon?

Sir K. Wood: I am aware of the outbreak to which the hon. Member refers. From the information in my possession it does not appear that any passengers suffering from typhoid were landed at Marseilles. I understand that the members of the crew were not inoculated. The names and addresses of the 329 passengers and of the 233 European members of the crew were sent by the London port health authority to the medical officers of health of the districts of destination. Three

passengers and two members of the crew gave addresses in Croydon, and I am informed by the local authority that they were followed up and are reported to have remained in good health.

Mr. Hannah: Does not such a question as this tend to drive people to travel by foreign lines?

Mr. Hall: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the condition of the freshwater tanks aboard the Peninsula and Oriental ships; and what precautions were taken, in view of the suspected cases of typhoid on board the steamship "Strathaird," when the tanks were cleaned in London, to ensure that tainted water was not pumped from one tank to another?

Sir K. Wood: I am informed that the drinking water on the ship to which the hon. Member refers was adversely reported on when she arrived at Aden, and in consequence the water in all the tanks was chlorinated. On arrival at Tilbury instructions were given that all fresh water tanks should be emptied, cleansed and cement washed, and then refilled from the quay hydrant and the water chlorinated. Precautions were taken to the satisfaction of the port health authority to prevent tainted water being pumped into a tank which had been cleansed.

Mr. Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman convinced that the water was not pumped from one tank to another and was, in fact, emptied away?

Sir K. Wood: If the hon. Gentleman will communicate with me, I will gladly make any further inquiries which he would like to have made.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMOKE ABATEMENT, LONDON.

Sir Percy Harris: asked the Minister of Health how many prosecutions there have been in London during the last 12 months under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, and the Public Health Smoke Abatement Act, 1926, for chimneys sending forth smoke in such quantities as to be a nuisance; whether there are any officers of his Department detailed to see that the provisions of these Acts relating to smoke abatement in London are enforced; and whether he is satisfied that all the London boroughs are making full use of the powers entrusted to them?

Sir K. Wood: The latest information I have is for the year 1936, when two prosecutions were reported. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The statutory responsibility for enforcing the smoke abatement law in London rests on the Metropolitan Borough Councils. The London County Council have certain default powers and also powers of making complaint to me. I have received no complaint of failure by the councils to use their powers.

Sir P. Harris: Is the Minister not aware by the evidence of his own eyes and nose that these powers have not been enforced by the borough councils; and will he, therefore, detail an officer to investigate the whole problem of smoke in London so that next year we may not continue to have these unpleasant and unsatisfactory conditions as a result of failure by local authorities to enforce the by-laws in many parts of London?

Sir K. Wood: I am looking forward to the formation and the meeting of the Joint Smoke Abatement Committee for London, and, as a result, I hope that something may be achieved during the New Year.

Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister aware that a good deal of the smoke complained of in this question is due to the fact that a very large number of factory owners use dirty, beastly coal for generating steam?

Sir K. Wood: I have heard all sorts of suggestions including the suggestion that the smoke is due to the coal fires which we all like to have in our own homes.

Mr. David Adams: Have there been any prosecutions in connection with the smoke nuisance arising from Government buildings in Whitehall?

Sir K. Wood: None have been brought to my notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — MENTAL HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION, LANCASHIRE.

Mr. Kelly: asked the Minister of Health whether steps are being taken to deal with the shortage of accommodation in Lancashire for mental patients?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir; steps are being taken to extend the existing mental hospitals and the Brockhall mental deficiency

colony, and to provide a new mental hospital and a new mental deficiency colony.

Mr. Kelly: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when these additions and extensions are likely to be completed?

Sir K. Wood: I will make inquiries and inform the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT, TYNESIDE.

Mr. Ede: asked the Minister of Health what has been the result of the conferences held with local authorities in the Tyneside area on the report of the Royal Commission on local government there; and whether he will make a statement on the intentions of the Government on this subject?

Sir K. Wood: I regret that the proceedings at the conference held at Newcastle on the 16th instant do not support the view that there was any substantial agreement as to the line of action to be taken with regard to the future local government of Tyneside. At the same time there was, I am glad to say, considerable general support for the view that arrangements for the joint operation of certain large-scale services should be further explored by the local authorities, and I understand that this will now be undertaken and in this exploration the Government will render all possible assistance.

Mr. Ede: Am I to understand that the Government do not intend to introduce legislation either in the current Session or the next Session to implement the findings of the Commission?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. The object of the conference was to see whether we could get some measure of agreement, either on the majority or minority reports, but from the proceedings over which I have presided and the proceedings which were held on the 16th instant I am afraid there is no likelihood of any common agreement, and I would not myself wish to impose something on the local authorities which they did not desire.

Mr. David Adams: Was there not some measure of agreement between two of the large authorities and two of the lesser authorities?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, there are hopeful signs which I would like to see pressed forward. The matter is dealt with in the last part of my answer which indicates what I think, at the moment, is the most favourable line that can be developed. I need hardly say, speaking for a great many Members of this House, that we would like to see something done in this direction.

Mr. Ede: Are we to take it that the joint boards alluded to, are the joint boards under the existing law, mainly the Act of 1933?

Sir K. Wood: I would not like to define that. I was not present at the final conference, but I hope we shall be able to do something on those lines and, no doubt, I shall be able to report to the House later.

Mr. Ede: asked the Minister of Health whether he will publish a financial statement showing the probable effect of the various proposals for reorganising local government on the Tyneside on the rates in each local government area affected?

Sir K. Wood: The financial effect of the schemes of local government submitted by the Majority and the Minority o£ the Royal Commission on the future government of Tyneside depends as was stated in these reports upon certain consequential arrangements which were in either case left for further consideration by the local authorities concerned, and in these circumstances I am afraid that any statement which could be prepared on the available information might be misleading.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENERAL REGISTER OFFICE (SEARCH FEES).

Mr. Maxwell: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, owing to the absence of dates in the indexes to birth, death, and marriage certificates at Somerset House, persons wishing to know the date of a particular birth, death, or marriage are obliged to pay a fee of 1s. to inspect the index, and then a further fee to inspect the certificate; and whether he will take the necessary steps, by legislation or otherwise, to enable the public to obtain this one piece of information without the inconvenience and additional expense involved in the present practice?

Sir K. Wood: The index to which my hon. Friend refers enables members of the public to trace the entry in the register of which they wish to obtain a certified copy. The suggested addition to the index could not replace the certified copy which is the only authentic evidence of an entry in the register, and might give rise to unfortunate errors. I may add that, as my hon. Friend is probably aware, certified copies can be obtained for many specified purposes at reduced fees.

Mr. Maxwell: Is it not rather unnecessary to make the public pay two fees to get one piece of information? Is it not true that Parliament could not really have intended that that should happen, and cannot my right hon. Friend take some means to obviate it?

Sir K. Wood: I used to be very familiar with the practice in days gone by, and I think that what happens is that you pay a fee to see whether the birth, marriage or death is recorded, and when you have ascertained that it is at Somerset House you then pay a fee for a certified copy, which, of course, is available as evidence. If the suggestion were adopted that the date should be placed on the index, somebody might make a note of it and go away, and I can foresee a good many difficulties arising from some imperfect or incorrect statement of what, in fact, appears in the index. It is always convenient to have a certified copy of a matter of this kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (STERLING CREDIT).

Mr. Day: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any further statement to make with regard to the sterling credit to France; and whether the gold reserve in the Bank of France is in any way charged with security for this credit?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): These questions do not arise, as the credit is in course of repayment, the final payment being made to-morrow.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister say what was the total amount?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The hon. Member can obtain that information from other sources.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PENSIONS).

Sir Assheton Pownall: asked the Prime Minister what action the Government intend to take on the Departmental Committee report which has been recently issued on the question of a pensions scheme for ex-Members of Parliament?

Sir S. Hoare: My right hon. Friend is making some inquiries, but is not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Sir A. Pownall: May I ask my right hon. Friend meanwhile to convey to members of the Departmental Committee thanks for the work they did in the production of their report?

Sir S. Hoare: I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to my hon. Friend's observations.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HOUSING.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the difficulties experienced by local authorities in giving effect to means tests and rebates in respect of the rents of houses built with Treasury assistance; and whether he is prepared to lay down general rules for the guidance of the authorities in these matters?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): Local authorities are only empowered to provide housing accommodation for the working classes and the question whether a particular applicant for a house is a member of the working classes is one for the local authority to decide. I am not aware that local

(a)
(b)


1.
Estimated number of insured building trade operatives in employment (a) in July, 1931, and (b) in July, 1937
38,768
52,760


2.
Estimated number of building trade operatives engaged in house building for local authorities (a) at 30th June, 1931, and (b) at 3rd July, 1937
4,067
10,041


3.
Number of houses under construction by local authorities (a) at 30th June, 1931, and (b) 30th June, 1937
8,969
25,008


4.
Average number of houses completed by local authorities per month (a) in the 12 months from January to December, 1931, and (b) in the n months from January to November, 1937
693
1,102


NOTE 1. The figures in headings 1 and 2 include the following types of craftsmen: bricklayers, masons, carpenters and joiners, plumbers, plasterers, slaters and painters. They do not include labourers.


NOTE 2. The figures in heading I are arrived at by deducting from the estimated number of operatives insured in July the number of operatives recorded as unemployed at the end of June.

authorities in general have difficulty in this respect, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars about the cases he has in mind I shall make inquiries. The general provisions governing the granting of rebates from rent are fully stated in regulations recently issued by the Department of Health.

Mr. Mathers: Leaving aside the question of individual cases, was it not at one time the right hon. Gentleman's intention to give instructions to the local authorities as to how they should carry out these means tests and decide upon who should have houses under certain conditions, and is there any intention to carry out that idea?

Mr. Elliot: Surely that is the point on which we conferred with the local authorities before issuing the regulations in question.

Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for Members for Scottish constituencies to have copies of the regulations?

Mr. Elliot: I shall be very glad to arrange that.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give, for the years 1931 and 1937, respectively, to the latest convenient date, the number of building operatives in Scotland; the number engaged in house building for local authorities; and the number of such houses produced?

Mr. Elliot: As the answer involves a table of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table of figures:

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any statement to make regarding the decision of Bathgate Town Council not to proceed with the building of further houses required for overcrowding and slum clearance because of the increasing costs; and whether he proposes to assist the council in their difficulty?

Mr. Elliot: I think the hon Member is under some misapprehension. I understand that at a recent meeting the town council decided not to proceed with a scheme for the erection of 60 houses in view of the high costs, but at the same meeting they decided to invite tenders for another scheme of 120 houses for slum clearance purposes.

POLICE MESSENGERS, GLASGOW.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the wages of Glasgow police messengers and the number employed; what wage was paid in 1920, and the reductions that were made and at what date; what proposal has been before the police committee for an increase in wages; and whether he will take steps to secure an increase to these low-paid workers?

Mr. Elliot: The employés referred to are paid 50s. per week, and their present number is 15. In 1920 their rate of pay was 29s. per week plus a bonus of 21s. per week. The present rate of pay, therefore, represents no reduction in the rate paid in 1920. As regards the last two parts of the question, I am informed that no application has been made to the corporation for an increase in the rate of pay, and that the question of an increase is not at present under consideration by the corporation. Any representations on the subject should be addressed to the corporation.

Mr. McGovern: In view of the low wages paid to these messengers, part of which is borne by the Treasury, cannot the right hon. Gentleman do anything to induce this Labour corporation to raise these low wages?

PRISONER, BARLINNIE GAOL, GLASGOW.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has completed his preliminary inquiries into the assault on Francis Healy at Barlinnie prison, Glasgow, on 10th September, 1937; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. Elliot: I apologise for the length of the reply.
I have again fully and carefully reviewed all the circumstances of this case and have had personal interviews this week with the Secretary of the Prisons Department, the Prison Governor and the Medical Superintendent of Gartloch Asylum. The circumstances of the case are as follow:
Francis Healy was committed to Barlinnie Prison on 1st June, 1937, on a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment with hard labour for assault. Prior to that he had had seven previous convictions of assault. For some days before 10th September, 1937, Healy was observed to be moody. On 9th September he complained to the Governor that other prisoners were "talking about him" and he asked for employment in the stoneyard instead of in a work shed. He was informed that he could not be given priority over the others who wished for this employment except after examination by the medical officer but on 10th September, after Healy had been interviewed by the Assistant Medical Officer, this application was granted. Healy worked in a normal manner in the stoneyard from 10 a.m. till 12.30 p.m. when he returned to his cell, like other prisoners, for his dinner. At 1.15 p.m., when alone in his cell, he suddenly became violent and began to sing and shout, broke 21 panes of glass, and smashed up his cell furniture. Four warders, with periods of prison service ranging from 29 years to 2½ years, were summoned and entered the cell. They found Healy in an aggressive condition, armed with a crockery chamber pot and a piece of wood broken from his cell furniture. One of the warders urged him to-put the pot down. Healy threw the chamber pot at the warder. The pot broke severely bruising and cutting the bridge of the warder's nose. A violent struggle then ensued. The warder struck Healy twice on the head with a baton. These blows caused two scalp wounds, each about one inch in length. Healy, who was struggling and fighting violently, was then taken by two of the warders who had entered his cell, assisted for a short time by another warder who was in the vicinity, from his cell along the narrow iron-railed gallery giving access to the cell, down an iron-railed staircase, and along another passage—a total distance of about 80 yards—to a padded cell where


he could not injure himself or destroy prison furniture. Three warders then removed his clothing and searched it in case he had in his possession broken glass or other articles dangerous to himself or to other persons. Healy was not unconscious at any stage of the occurrence. In it five warders had at one time or another been concerned.
Shortly after 2 p.m. the Assistant Medical Officer examined him, and put two stitches in each of the two scalp wounds. Healy did not make any representation to the Medical Officer that he had been assaulted by warders but said he had gone mad and that all night long he heard voices taunting him and telling him he would soon be insane. In view of Healy's manner, conduct and statements, the Assistant Medical Officer and another doctor who examined him certified that afternoon that Healy was of unsound mind. About 3 p.m. the Governor saw Healy who showed no symptoms of physical injury apart from his head which by this time had been bandaged. Healy expressed to the Governor his regret at what he had done but made no complaint that he had been ill-used. Shortly afterwards the Governor saw the injured warder. The warder, who was in a dazed condition, on the advice of the Governor and the Medical Officer did not resume active duty until the night of the following day.
Healy was removed under Sheriff's warrant to Gartloch Asylum—which he entered about 5 p.m. on 10th September. He was examined there at 5.30 p.m. by the Assistant Medical Officer and again on the following day by the Medical Superintendent. They found, in addition to the two scalp wounds, bruising of both shoulders, of the left thigh and leg, and of the left hand. The Medical Superintendent has informed me that all the bruises were compatible with the foregoing narrative of events in Barlinnie and that the bruises in particular were diffused and not such as would be caused by, e.g., kicking. On 17th September the Medical Superintendent of Gartloch Asylum certified that Healy was of unsound mind. On 26th November the Medical Superintendent reported that while Healy had greatly improved under Asylum care, he would not take the responsibility of discharging him then as he had not had him long enough under observation to certify that

he had fully recovered. On 6th December he made a further report indicating that Healy's history and conduct contained various manifestations of a mental disturbance of maniac depressive type, and that in certain circumstances he could become an impulsive and dangerous man. On 9th December Healy was fully examined by a Deputy Commissioner of the General Board of Control who reported that he was still convalescent from an attack of maniacal excitement amounting to certifiable insanity, and that it was in the best interests of the patient that he should be detained under institutional care and treatment for some time. Since then the Medical Superintendent has informed me that he could not at present certify Healy as being of sound mind, and that, even if Healy had no part of his prison sentence still to serve, he would not be prepared for the present to recommend his liberation from the asylum even on probation—the course which, in a mental case of this kind, would normally precede final discharge.
On 11th September, 12 prisoners addressed representations to me about the case. None of the 12 claimed to have been eye witnesses, but eight stated that they had heard the struggle in the cell. Their representations were carefully considered at the time, but as none of the prisoners had been an eye witness no inquiries were made from the prisoners. On 22nd September all prisoners had an opportunity of making complaints to a member of the Prison Visiting Committee. One prisoner (who was one of the 12 who made representations on 11th September but had not claimed to have seen or heard anything of the occurrence) referred to this case. The member of the Visiting Committee decided to take no action in the matter. The facts of the case have also been investigated by the Lord Advocate who has found no ground to justify proceedings for assault against any of the warders concerned. I am, myself, satisfied that there is no evidence to support the suggestion that Healy was subjected on 10th September to a measure of force or restraint beyond what was necessary in all the circumstances of the case. I am further satisfied that his certification on that date and his subsequent detention in Gartloch are fully justified by the facts of the case as known then and subsequently to the medical officers concerned.
Consideration of the course of events in the present case, however, has shown the desirability of ensuring that, if a prisoner whose sanity is in doubt becomes violent, there should be present from the earliest possible moment the medical officer, or, in his absence, the prison governor. Directions, as I informed the House on 23rd November, have been given accordingly. I have now further arranged that, in all cases in which force has had to be used against a prisoner and he is bruised or wounded in consequence, the circumstances shall be immediately reported to the chairman of the Visiting Committee (as well as to the Prisons Department, as at present) so that he may, if he thinks fit, have them inquired into independently by the committee forthwith.

Mr. McGovern: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he also personally interviewed Francis Healy; can he state, from the results of his investigation, how this man's body was one mass of bruises from his head to his heels, black and blue and yellow, at the time that I myself saw him, in company with a witness; and can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how the man's back, body, hips, legs, and arms received these bruises if he did not receive them from the warders in the cell?

Mr. Elliot: I have not personally examined Francis Healy, because, as the hon. Member will see, he saw him some time between 10th September and the end of that month, and he did not raise the matter in the House until nearly six weeks after, on 23rd November, by which time it would have been impossible for me to see any evidence of this bruising. Consequently, I have had no opportunity of examining the evidence which the hon. Member saw at the time. It is for that reason that I have made arrangements that after any violence has had to be used in prison, the matter is to be reported forthwith to the Chairman of the Visiting Committee, as trying to go into such matters a long time afterwards inevitably raises great difficulties.

Mr. McGovern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my reason for not raising the matter earlier was that I did not want the man to be sent back to Barlinnie after these incidents and thought it better if he remained in the asylum under better conditions, and that his

parents and himself thought that such a tremendous reflection on his mental capacity was unfair? Owing to the severe beating up which this man has received and from the evidence that I myself have seen, they pressed for the matter to be raised, and I have raised it in consequence, and that is the cause of the delay. Further, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there was no undue force used on this man in taking him into this padded cell?

Mr. Elliot: I sympathise with the reasons for the delay, but, as the hon. Member did not raise the matter for several weeks, he will see the great difficulty that inevitably arises in any subsequent investigation of the case. I have already stated, in my answer to the question, that considering the violent nature of the struggle, I am satisfied that no undue force was used.

Mr. McGovern: May I give notice that, owing to the completely unsatisfactory nature of the reply—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If it had been you, you would have something to say about it—I deem it my public duty to raise this matter on the Adjournment to-day, if possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRE-BROADCASTING SERVICE, SOUTHAMPTON.

Sir Charles Barrie: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the proposed establishment by the Post Office of a public wire-broadcasting service at Southampton?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): It is proposed to introduce a public experimental wire-broadcasting service at Southampton during the course of 1938. The service will be undertaken as a part of the practical experimental work in wire distribution of broadcast programmes, with which the Post Office has been charged, in accordance with the Government's proposals in the White Paper on the recommendations of the Committee on Broadcasting, 1935 (Cmd. 5207). In addition to the main public service distributed by means of a special wire net work, a limited experiment will be made in the distribution of broadcast programmes over the telephone wires. Subscribers will have a choice of several broadcast programmes; and I am


in consultation with the British Broadcasting Corporation concerning the arrangements for their selection. The charge for the service will be 1s. 6d. a week plus a small initial payment. This does not include a loud speaker which will be provided or paid for by the subscriber. It is hoped to start work on the laying down of equipment within the next few months and to open the service in part of Southampton in the late summer or the autumn. The total capital cost of providing such a service in the Southampton area will, it is estimated, be about £200,000, of which only about £2,000 will be spent during the present financial year, and for which a supplementary estimate will be presented in the spring.

Mr. Day: Will this wireless telephone service be open to all telephone subscribers all over the United Kingdom?

Oral Answers to Questions — JAM (LABELLING).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to encouraging the manufacture of jam from fresh home-grown fruit, he will introduce legislation to ensure that jam manufactured from pulp preserved in sulphurous acid should be labelled as such and should not be allowed to be sold as fresh fruit jam?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): The labelling of jam in the manner suggested is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who informs me that in the light of information at present before him he does not consider it necessary to require declaration of the presence in jam of the amount of sulphur dioxide now permitted by the preservative regulations.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware that in the Vale of Evesham they do require this, and that where there is a will there is a way, and will he give it a second thought in February when we return?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

ACCIDENTS (BOYS).

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has considered the increasing number of boys and lads killed

and injured in surface and underground coal-mining operations in Scotland; that attendance at safety classes is a matter of great difficulty for many young persons; and whether, in view of the fact that the number of casualties suffered by boys of 14 and 15 is 12.7 per 1,000, while the casualties among youths and young men of 16 to 19 is less than half that rate, he will consider the desirability of providing better facilities for attendance at safety classes and of raising the age at which boys may be employed underground?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I am aware that in recent years there has been some increase in the rate of accidents among boys of 14 and 15 years of age employed at mines in Scotland, but the hon. Member is under a misapprehension in stating that for all three-day accidents the rate for youths of 16 to 19 years is less than half that of the younger boys. For all such accidents, the rate per thousand persons employed is slightly less for those under 16 than for youths between 16 and 20. No particular difficulties in the way of the boys attending the organised safety classes in Scotland have been brought to my notice, but, if the hon. Member has any case in mind and will give me the necessary information, I will make inquiry. The question of raising the age at which boys may be employed underground has been raised in evidence before the Royal Commission on Safety in Coal Mines, and I must await the Commission's report.

PRICES (LONDON).

Sir P. Harris: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the high prices being charged per cwt. for coal in the working-class districts of the London area; whether he can explain the great increase in prices charged, both compared with summer prices and with the same period 12 months ago; and what action he proposes to take to prevent a further rise in prices?

Captain Crookshank: I understand that the prices generally charged for house coal in the London area are now 1d. per cwt. more than a year ago and 3d. per cwt. more than the last summer prices. A seasonal increase in the winter is usual, but I do not know why this winter's prices are higher than last, although some part


of the increase is probably in respect of increased costs including rail charges. I have no control over these prices.

Sir P. Harris: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in the poorer districts of London, in the south and east, they are already charging 2s. 10d. per cwt. for coal, and that there will be a still further increase which is unjustified by the supply or the increased cost; and will he use any influence he can to endeavour to protect these poor people who are feeling the pressure of the high prices at a time when the prices of other commodities are also rising?

Mr. David Grenfell: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House why the price of domestic coal has gone up by 3d. per cwt., which is 5s. a ton? Will he make inquiries to see why there is this great disparity between the wages per ton, which have gone up by 1s. 2d., and the increase of 5s.? Where has the 3s. 10d. gone to?

Captain Crookshank: I have given the figures for which I was asked in regard to London.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENT SQUARE.

Sir W. Davison: asked the Minister of Transport what is the present position with regard to the removal of the block of offices known as Westminster House from Parliament Square, and the improvement of traffic conditions and amenities at this central point in the immediate vicinity of the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): I am advised that informal discussions are taking place between the various parties concerned, but no decision has been reached.

Sir W. Davison: Do the Government realise the great importance of securing the amenities of this central spot of the Empire, and will they push forward the negotiations with all practicable urgency?

Captain Hudson: Yes, Sir; the clerk of the Middlesex County Council has recently conferred with representatives of my Department and the London County Council, and is meeting representatives of the Westminster City Council in the early part of the New Year.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKINGS (LIQUIDATION).

Brigadier-General Makins: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the expressed intention of the Oxford Electric Lighting Company, in connection with the proposed sale of their undertaking to the Wessex Company, to liquidate the company and pay off the preference shareholders at par; and whether, in drafting the proposed Electricity Bill, he will, in the interests of preference shareholders in electricity undertakings which it is proposed should be absorbed under the forthcoming Bill, take powers to promote amalgamation rather than liquidation?

Captain Hudson: I am aware that proposals have been made for the winding-up of the company. My hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion has been noted for consideration, but he will not expect me to make any statement in advance of publication of the proposed Bill.

Brigadier-General Makins: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for the reply, may I ask him to draw the attention of the Minister of Transport to the serious effect that such an inequitable settlement of the interests of certain types of shareholders in electricity undertakings may have on the easy passage of this forthcoming Bill?

Captain Hudson: I will convey that view to my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Major Milner: asked the Minister of Pensions the names of those at present constituting the Special Grants Committee and any sub-committee or committees thereof; the number of times they have met during the year 1937; and the average attendance at each meeting?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): The Special Grants Committee consists of 14 members under the chairmanship of Sir Edward Troup, K.C.B., K.C.V.O. I propose, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission to circulate the full list of members in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The committee and its sub-committees have held 50 meetings during the present year and the average attendance of members was rather more than four.

Major Milner: Do I understand that the average attendance was four out of 14?

Mr. Ramsbotham: That is so.

Major Milner: How are the number of meetings divided as between the main committee and the sub-committees?

Mr. Ramsbotham: We are to debate this matter in a short time, and perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will raise it then.

Following is the list of members:

Sir Edward Troup, K.C.B., K.C.V.O.—Chairman.
R. F. Cholmeley, Esq., C.B.E., M.A—Vice-Chairman.
Miss M. Cozens-Hardy, M.B.E., J.P.
A. Cunnison, Esq.
Admiral Cresswell Eyres, D.S.O., R.N.
R. F. Gould, Esq.
A. Hume Nicholl, Esq., C.B.E.
Stamford Hutton, Esq., O.B.E., M.A., J.P.
Alderman Arthur Jenkins, M.P.
A. Maxwell-Lyte, Esq.
Mrs. B. Ross Smyth, O.B.E., J.P.
Lieut.-Colonel V. Vivian, C.M.G., M.V.O., D.S.O.
A. G. Webb, Esq., M.B.E.
Miss E. Wilson.

Major Milner: asked the Minister of Pensions particulars covering the three years prior to the last convenient date of the number of cases of alleged unworthy conduct on the part of widows in receipt of pensions reported to the Special Grants Committee; the general nature of such reports; the number of such reports originating in anonymous letters; and the action taken on such reports?

Mr. Ramsbotham: As the answer includes a table of figures, I propose, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Major Milner: Will the hon. Gentleman see that I have a copy before the Debate?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I have already arranged that.

Following are the figures:

The cases reported to the Special Grants Committee in each of the last three years to 30th September numbered:



1935
…
…
…
363


1936
…
…
…
354


1937
…
…
…
284

The reports in general contain information which makes it necessary to investigate the pensioners conduct as affecting her title to pension, but the records of the Special Grants Committee do not enable me to distinguish the cases originating in anonymous letters.

Following on their investigations the committee declared the award forfeited in the following numbers of cases:


1935
…
…
…
222


1936
…
…
…
193


1937
…
…
…
153

They also decided to administer the pension in trust in the following numbers:


1935
…
…
…
23


1936
…
…
…
14


1937
…
…
…
17

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the maximum rate of profit permitted in War Office contracts during the past two years in the three highest cases, and the amount of contracts in each case?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): It would be contrary to the public interest to disclose specific rates of profit, but the hon. Member may rest assured that the general level of profits allowed is no higher than is fair and reasonable having regard to the circumstances of each particular case.

Mr. Mander: Is the Minister aware that the Air Ministry found no difficulty in providing this information; and, in view of the fact that one Defence Department can do it, is it not obvious that others can do it; and will he be good enough to reconsider the matter with a view to supplying the same information?

Sir. V. Warrender: My answer to the hon. Gentleman is exactly in line with the answer given to him on 7th April by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence.

Mr. Mander: But is the Minister aware that I am referring to an answer given to me by the Air Minister in the last few weeks, when the information asked for in this question was given in respect to


the Air Ministry; and will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to reconsider the matter and consult other Departments?

Sir V. Warrender: The hon. Member had better put a question down, to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. I cannot answer for other Departments.

Mr. Mander: I do not want information from the Air Ministry or the Ministry for the Co-ordination of Defence. I want the same information from the War Office with regard to War Office contracts as was given to me by the Air Ministry. Surely that is the reasonable demand?

Sir V. Warrender: I cannot give any undertaking of that kind. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that it would be undesirable to give the information.

Mr. Mander: I have already been given it by the Air Ministry.

Sir V. Warrender: I do not think the questions are exactly parallel. It is not a question of my Department wrongly withholding information. The hon. Member knows that to give these profits would not be in the public interest.

Mr. Mander: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter later. The answer is entirely unreasonable.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY ORDNANCE SERVICES.

Mr. Kelly: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in regard to the promotions recently made to the posts of superintendent of stores at Chilwell depot, Army Ordnance Service, and superintendent of sales yard, Woolwich Arsenal Army Ordnance Service, the individuals appointed were recently serving in the armed forces of the Crown; whether, as they are junior in service and experience to a number of supervisory employés who could be regarded as eligible for promotion to these posts, any examination or consideration of the senior staff available was undertaken before the appointments were made; and what steps he is taking to allay the discontent amongst supervisory grades who could normally look to further promotion?

Sir V. Warrender: I think the hon. Member has been misinformed. Both the

individuals referred to are ex-service men who left the Army shortly after the War. The records and capacity of all eligible men were taken into careful consideration before these two appointments were made. I am not aware of any discontent, nor can I sec that there are any grounds for such on the part of other supervisory grades in the Army Ordnance Services.

Mr. Kelly: Will not the claims of the length of service and the capacity of the men engaged in the stores be considered so that people who come in later will not be promoted over their heads?

Sir V. Warrender: These individuals have had long experience in the Service and have not just come out of the Army.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the League of Nations Assembly resolution of 6th October expressing moral support for China and recommending that members of the League should refrain from taking any action which might have the effect of weakening China's power of resistance, and thus increasing her difficulties in the present conflict, he will arrange that no further licences for the export of arms to Japan shall be granted?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Cranborne): As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade stated on Tuesday in reply to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) only one licence for the export of arms to Japan has been issued in the last three months. While His Majesty's Government have every intention of continuing to give effect within the limits of their power to the resolution to which the hon. Member refers, the action which he suggests would involve difficulties particularly in connection with the Anglo-Japanese Commercial Treaty of 1911. The resolution in question does not absolve His Majesty's Government from their treaty obligations.

Mr. Mander: Can the Noble Lord give an assurance that the Government are doing, and will do, everything possible to carry out the resolution of the Assembly?

Viscount Cranborne: I should be glad to give that assurance.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS.

Mr. Mander: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the maximum rate of profit permitted in Admiralty contracts during the past two years in the three highest cases, and the amount of contracts in each case?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): It would not be in the public interest to give the information asked for in the question. I would refer the hon. Member to the replies to his questions of 7th April last given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence.

Mr. Mander: Is my hon. Friend aware that this information with regard to Air Ministry contracts was given here in the last few weeks by the Air Minister, and is there any reason why the same information should not be given in the public interest with regard to Naval contracts? Will my hon. Friend be good enough to reconsider the matter?

Mr. Shakespeare: I will always reconsider anything, but my firm opinion is that whatever is done in other cases, it would be a grave departure if we were to give the rate of profits with regard to Admiralty contracts. I am sure that the interests of the taxpayer are best served by this rule.

Mr. Mander: Why is it more dangerous to do it in the case of Admiralty contracts than in the case of Air Ministry contracts.

Mr. Shakespeare: We have had long years of experience in the Admiralty, and we have devised a system which we think does justice to all.

Mr. Mathers: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that they have had years of experience of contractors who cannot be trusted to do the fair thing?

Mr. Stephen: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that it was not in the public interest for the Air Ministry to give that information?

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) asks an enormous number of questions?

Mr. Mander: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (CLOCKS).

Sir W. Davison: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you would be good enough to see that none of the terrible wooden structures which have been put up behind you are erected in the House of Commons during the vacation, while Members are away, and that if you should have any doubt about the matter yourself you would be kind enough to consult the Fine Arts Commission on the matter as I, for one, should not like this Chamber to be disfigured, as it would be if any of them were erected?

Mr. Speaker: I will have a look at the clocks.

Mr. Thorne: May I ask the First Commissioner of Works whether any decision has been arrived at about the face of the three imitation clocks that we have in front of us, and the dummy moon, and where the new clock is to be erected? So far as I am concerned, the clock should be where the dummy moon is.

Hon. Members: No.

The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): I have not made up my mind, and hope to get the assistance and guidance of hon. Members.

Mr. Stephen: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of trying a clock in the centre of each side Gallery?

Sir P. Sassoon: I will look into the matter.

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS).

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday, 1st February; provided that if it is represented to Mr. Speaker by His Majesty's Government that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during the Adjournment, and Mr. Speaker is satisfied that the public interest does so require, he may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and the Government Business to be transacted on the day on which the House shall so meet shall, subject to the publication of notice thereof in the Order Paper to be circulated on the day on which the House shall so meet, be such as the Government may appoint, but subject as aforesaid the House shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to the day on which it shall so meet, and any Government Orders of the Day and Government Notices of Motions that may stand on the Order Book for the 1st day of February or any subsequent day shall be appointed for the day on which the House shall so meet."—[The Prime Minister.]

EX-SERVICE MEN.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

11.58 a.m.

Mr. F. O. Roberts: I am sure that every hon. Member will appreciate the importance of the subject which I venture to raise to-day, in relation to ex-service men. No Debate on the subject has taken place for a considerable time, and attention has been given to it only by way of question and answer and a few speeches to which the Minister replied during the course of the Debate on the Address. One does not blame the Minister, who answers only when we ask him to do so. The position now is that we cannot refrain any longer from putting a few points to him. Unless some material improvement can be shown, I can promise the Minister that a little more frequent attention will be given to the subject, and that he will have a chance of responding a little more frequently in future than he has in the past. In using those words I do not intend to threaten the Minister, but only to issue a word of warning to him.
All Members know men who were passed into the Service as A.1 and are now broken. Many of them have no pension, others are unable to secure work, and most of them are well-nigh devoid of hope. This is a matter not only of grave concern but of dissatisfaction to Members

of this House, whatever their party may be. I am sure that every hon. Member desires this state of affairs to be brought to an end as speedily as possible. It would be a fine ending ot this Session if, after an exchange of views in the course of the discussion, there eventuated some more satisfactory solution of the problem. The matter is of concern not only in this House; outside, as we know, an inquiry has been commenced by the British Legion. They were led to undertake it because of strong representations made at their annual conference last Whitsuntide by delegates from all quarters of the country. Thus there is clear indication of a measure of unrest and dissatisfaction in the ranks of ex-service men themselves. I believe, also, that responsible deputations have waited upon the Minister from time to time to urge that some kind of reform or change should be made in the administration of the Pensions Department.
I cannot refrain from quoting, in support of my statement that there is grave concern outside, a resolution passed at the annual conference of the Conservative party, which I am sure the Minister would not regard as unimportant. A statement made in the course of that resolution seems to indicate clearly the acceptance of the view that something must be done to bring about a change. The resolution says:
This Conference is of the opinion that there are many ex-service men who, as a result of injuries received or ailments contracted during their service, are suffering serious physical incapacity, but who are receiving no pensions at all or only such as are inadequate for their needs; and that with a view to ascertaining what measures are necessary for the relief of many cases of hardship known to exist an inquiry into the matter by the Government should be instituted forthwith.
I hope to make one or two observations in support of that general contention calling for an inquiry.
Ex-service men can be divided for our consideration into several categories. The first that we can name consists of those who have had their cases equitably settled. They are by far the largest majority. Next comes the category of those who regard themselves as under-assessed, a by no means small or unimportant section. Then come what we know as hard cases and those who are on the border-line, and have never received any suitable reward. There are some who


may, possibly, in the early days of demobilisation, have received some kind of recognition of their disability. Then I would put a number of new cases which are arising all the time, and which can be dealt with under the special machinery which has been provided. Lastly, I would mention the cases that have become known as, I believe, the prematurely aged, those who are believed to be breaking down in health and circumstances as compared with average people who have had no actual war experience.
I propose to make one or two remarks about the hard-line cases first. There is no need to emphasise unduly the significance of this phase of the problem; the facts are ever present to the Minister and his Department as well as to Members of the House who are communicated with from time to time in that regard. But the special need which is created by the existence of cases of this type seems to me to demand that exceptional treatment shall be given to them. The position of many ex-service men seems to get more and more precarious the further we get away from the War; hence the need for a greater measure of support and protection for them. I appreciate that the Minister will hesitate to do anything that is likely to upset the established warrants, and I would not counsel any such action. But, accepting that, if we are to do anything, fresh ground will have to be broken. A new survey is absolutely imperative.
The Minister finds that he can do no more in connection with the border-line cases than has already been done in connection with hundreds upon hundreds of them. Many of them come and go time and again. Whenever there is a change of administration, a kind of battledore and shuttlecock game goes on with these cases as between Members of Parliament who may never have seen them before, the Ministry, and the applicants. It seems to me that that is a kind of thing which is not good in itself, and with which we ought to try to deal if we possibly can. In view of the many expressions of view which have been made, I am certain that the House cannot, and does not, intend to leave the matter where it now stands. To do so would be both unfair and unwise. If any adequate alteration is to be made, it appears to be established that some kind of special consideration of this matter will have to

be undertaken. Representations have been made from many quarters, including these benches, advocating the appointment of a Select Committee as the medium whereby proper consideration of the matter can be entered upon. I support that view. If such a committee were given wide terms of reference, they could first of all review the position as it is to-day, and representations could be made to them which would be direct and serviceable so far as the ex-service men go. Such a committee could also inquire whether there is any way of dealing with the many cases which the existing warrants and regulations cannot cover.
If we accept the conclusion that it is undesirable to do anything to upset the existing warrants, the answer must be that we must either have new warrants or additional warrants beyond those which already exist. A Select Committee, if appointed, could investigate whether an extra special warrant could be made applicable. I do not know whether the Minister has ever considered the practicability of such a suggestion, but I would like him to do so first of all, even though he may subsequently agree that it is a matter which a Select Committee could well investigate. A Select Committee, after consideration, could advise the House as to the necessity or practicability of setting up special tribunals to deal with the old hard cases to which I have referred, and which cannot under the existing regulations be accepted. The Minister might also find it an advantage to have the advice and conclusions of a Select Committee alongside any conclusions which may be presented to him by the British Legion in the report which they are now compiling. In passing I would mention that the British Legion investigation, as I understand it, is being confined mainly, if not wholly, to the position of the men who are called prematurely aged, and the points which I am mentioning now seem to me to go right beyond the investigation which the British Legion is now undertaking.
In further support of the general case which I am making with regard to the hard-line cases, I have in my hand a list of 25, not to be dealt with individually, but only produced collectively for the guidance of the Minister as to the type of case that we have in mind when we refer to the old-time or hard cases. The ages of the men in this list of 25 are: in


four cases under 40; in nine cases 40 or over but under 50; in nine 50 or over but under 60; and in three, 60 or just over 60. This list has been furnished to me by the secretary of a branch of the British Legion, and I know from personal association with many of these cases that one or two of them, if not more, have been investigated several times. I believe that a thorough overhaul has been made of the whole of the circumstances associated with them. But, knowing some of them as I do, and knowing the position held by the representative of the British Legion who has presented them to me, I am satisfied that there is still something lacking, because otherwise, even if the whole of these cases could not be accepted, a number of them certainly would. I have no doubt that each of these cases has been decided strictly in accordance with the powers given to the Minister and his Department, and I have no doubt that every regulation, so far as they are concerned, has been complied with. But this list of cases could be multiplied by hundreds if we were to take the country through, and it seems to me that they really give ground for doubts in the minds of those who have investigated them. I cannot help submitting that they indicate either a need for a definite alteration in the existing warrants or regulations, or for the provision of additional warrants or fresh regulations or a modification of those which are in existence at the present moment. To me this is just an indication of the kind of investigation which a Select Committee could undertake, and as a result of which it could offer sound advice to the Minister and his Department and give greater satisfaction in all quarters of the House, and also establish that greater measure of confidence in the country which is essential when we are dealing with cases of this kind.
I am further supported in the contention which I am making by the fact that, as a member of a committee, called the Emergency Help Committee, associated with the Order of St. John, there are from time to time brought to the notice of myself and other members of that committee another series of difficult types of cases; and I should say, from my own knowledge of the work of committees of

that kind, that it affords additional support for the case which I am endeavouring to put to the House and to the Minister to-day. There is another difficult type of case which was brought to my notice, and the Minister with his usual care and consideration took up the case on my representations. But there are associated with it features which are not quite as satisfactory. I shall not mention names. It is the case of a man resident on the Continent. First of all he had exceeding difficulty in establishing connection with representatives of the Ministry who act in that part of the world. Such a length of time went by, according to the statements made to me, that I was not without some kind of fear that the man might even die before he had an opportunity of getting over to this country for the hospital treatment that was accorded to him.
If the facts are as I state them, I ask the Minister to see that these lengthy intervals do not take place, whether in association with the Continental representatives or anyone else who is working with the Ministry. When this man was brought here he received very adequate treatment at the hospital at Roehampton. A major operation was performed. The man is now declared to be more than 50 per cent. depreciated in earning capacity. Yet the award made to that man is not in any way commensurate with the lowering of his status, so far as responsible work goes. The next case is one which the Minister still has under consideration, but it is a type which seems to warrant some of the observations that I am making to-day. It is the case of a man who is compelled to wear an artificial limb. He had to make various efforts to get his case adjusted. In his last extremity he wrote to me as a Member of Parliament. I do not blame him, but I do think that in cases of this kind a man ought not to have to await the attention of a Member of Parliament before proper regard is had to his circumstances. This man was in a very unfortunate position indeed. In the course of a speech on the Address the Minister said that a man
is pensionable because of a disability which can reasonably be attributed to war service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1937; col. 351; Vol. 328.]
A great deal seems to depend on the interpretation which those concerned place on the word "reasonably." The type of


case which I am now bringing to the notice of the Minister makes me say that I would like to see what might be regarded as a common-sense interpretation rather than one that merely comes inside the meaning of that word "reasonably." I sometimes feel that perhaps a little more elasticity might be associated with decisions coming under the existing arrangements. Some rejected claims might then be more readily accepted, and both the Minister and Members of this House would avoid some of the trouble to which they are put. There is still a need for applicants to be really allowed the full benefit of any doubt.
I want to advance one further argument that something should be done to deal with emergencies and the tiding over of difficulties, and I do not know what is the position of the Ministry in relation to what is known as the King's Fund. If there is nothing in the King's Fund which the Minister can bring to his aid in dealing with cases of emergency or exceeding difficulty, I put it to him that he might ask the Treasury to let him have a grant, if only £250,000, which he could have properly administered in helping cases which do not come inside the Warrants at the present time. I know that that cannot be regarded as any kind of a settlement. If we are to have adequate justice meted out to the men in such cases as I have mentioned, something beyond this has to be done. But as an expedient I think it would be exceedingly valuable to the Minister if he had such a fund at his disposal for administration by properly chosen representatives. If he has not sufficient remaining in the King's Fund, can he take the responsibility once more of appealing to the Treasury?
I must make one or two observations with regard to the cases of the partially disabled. I have no doubt that every one of those cases can be regarded as properly assessed according to the number of inches of limb which the man has lost, or as to any form of disability which he has to bear. But, from one cause or another, many of these types of men are unable to work, or if able to work they are not able to get back to the jobs which they once had, and the procuring of what is termed light employment, which they are advised to get, is not easy, and many cannot get any employment at all. In the cases of the

men who are "100 per cent.," there should be some kind of review if there is no employment for them or if they are unable to get the job which they are seeking. If that cannot be done there should be a definite obligation as to reconsideration of the assessment which has been made. That, again, is a type of case which might be assisted if the Minister had the kind of grant which I have mentioned at his disposal. As far as one can judge, the disabled man shows a greater tendency to break down in these days, under the strain which is imposed, than was the case even a few years ago. It becomes exceedingly difficult for a man to find a job, or if he finds one to hold it down.
There is a further point for consideration. I am wondering whether the time has not come to apply a principle which is accepted in other directions by allowing men to be eligible for an old age pension at an earlier year than 65 or 70. My next point relates to artificial limbs. I have said many times, both when I had the honour of being at the Ministry of Pensions and since, that if there is one branch of the work of the Ministry in which one had the right to feel some measure of pride it was in association with the provision of limbs for those who came to the Ministry. But I have been a little disturbed by the receipt of a letter and a sort of memorandum which have been handed to me. They came to me from such a reliable source that I have no hesitation in citing a couple of examples from the documents. First I would ask the Minister, has there been during recent times any lowering of the standard of the limbs which are supplied to ex-service men? Is the type any different? Are the men able to make a selection of the type of limb which they feel is most adequate to their needs? Is sufficient time given to the patients to enable them to understand how to use the artificial limb which they will have to wear?
Is any reimbursement made to the men who attend the limb-fitting centres for the time they may lose from their work or for the expenses they may incur in travelling? One particular case mentioned in a letter I have received is of a man who was so dissatisfied with the limb supplied to him that he purchased one for himself at a cost of £50. I am sure it was never


the intention of Parliament or the Ministry that any man should be so dissatisfied with a limb supplied to him that he should have to purchase one for himself. Another case is that of a man who suffered a double knee amputation. He was in France, and my information is that he had to carry on eight months' correspondence before the Minister would allow the expense for the journey to London for fitting purposes. I should be very glad to give the Minister the information in my possession, and I am sure I should not have to ask him twice to give it his sympathetic attention.
I notice that the Minister has been holding a series of conferences. I hope they have proved as useful to him as they did to me when I had the honour of holding them and addressing them. I should like to know whether these conferences were with chairmen only, or whether they were general meetings? Although I do not want to ask the Minister to take up unduly the time of the House to-day, it would be interesting if he could tell us a few of the things that the chairmen told him. Did they tell him whether there was any volume of complaint from the districts of which they were in charge; and what kind of efforts do they still make for keeping in contact with the disabled men whom they are appointed to serve? I hope the Minister will be able to say one or two things, if only about his experience in that connection.
I want to say one further thing about that class of pensioners, the ex-service men who are called the prematurely aged. I notice that in the Minister's address, in October or November, he expressed doubt as to the conclusions which have been reached by certain of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, as to the effect of service on a man's condition. The Minister quoted conclusions which had been reached, mainly in the Dominions, that service conditions, so far from militating against a man's success, rather help him to a condition of life which would prosper him after the service has been finished with. I cannot accept the conclusion of the Minister in this connection, but I suppose we shall have to await that full report which is coming from the Legion. I am wondering whether the Minister, in deciding to confine his conclusion largely to the experience gathered by the Dominions, had

any evidence as to circumstances here. Has his own Department been making any such study as to this question? If so, can he give us any information as to its conclusions?
My last observations will be with regard to the Legion report. First, I would like to ask the Minister whether he knows if the Legion examination is confined in its scope to consideration only of the position of the men regarded as prematurely aged? There is one other point. As I said at the beginning, I understand that the direction for the compiling of this report was from the British Legion Conference held in July. Is it intended that this report is to go back to the Legion again at Whitsuntide, for ratification, before any action can be taken, either by the Minister or the Legion? What is to be the position of the Minister if he finds that he cannot accept the report and its conclusions? Suppose it contains nothing of value so far as his administration goes. It may be unsatisfactory from many points of view. One hopes that it will not; but, in that event, has he any plans of his own which he can lay before the House to-day?
In view of all the circumstances, I want to repeat my request that he will seriously reconsider the judgment he expressed some time ago, I believe on behalf of the Government, that it was not the intention to appoint a Select Committee. I hope that the representations which have been made will show that there is only one satisfactory sort of examination, and that is through the kind of Select Committee which I have again suggested to-day. The Legion report will probably be a most valuable document. At the same time, I cannot help feeling that it would have been better for the Government to have accepted the responsibility for this work through its own inquiry, and that this course will, after all, prove necessary. There is a rapid decline, unfortunately, in the volume of work to be undertaken. Figures that I have show that during the seven years from 1929 to 1936, 51,000 pensioners died, giving a mortality rate of 16 per 1,000 among ex-service men, as compared with 7.6 per 1,000 for adult males of the same age. These natural causes are bound to continue, and they will make the work of the Ministry less and less each year. This fact, combined with the others to which I have alluded, and taking into account the


general change in circumstances and conditions, and the accumulation of cases of uncertainty and difficulty, appear to me to make this the most opportune time for a general and complete survey. I would rather see the Minister act now than wait for a continuous pressure from inside and outside the House, which he may find himself unable to resist.
I have tried to put as fairly as I can the case as I see it. I do not underestimate, or fail to appreciate, the difficulty of the Minister and his Department, but the position of many ex-service men is so exceedingly grave that we cannot ignore it, even if we desired to do so. This House and the Minister cannot rest content with the position as they find it today. I ask the Minister to take as bold action as he can to deal with some of the defects which have arisen. They are nobody's fault, but somebody has to deal with them. However bold the action necessary, I can assure the Minister that he will have complete support from all quarters of the House.

12.34 p.m.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: I am sure we should be extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman raising this subject today: first, because we could not spend the few hours remaining, before we go away, better than by considering the case of these men, to whom we still owe so much, and, secondly, because if, over a long period of time, the transactions of this or any other Ministry are left undiscussed in the House, it must inevitably lead to a spirit of complacency, which may not be justified. Without saying anything personal to the Minister, it would be an entire mistake to imagine that, because it is a very long time since his Vote was considered, for that reason everybody in the House and their constituents were satisfied that all was well with the treatment of the disabled ex-service men. After being in this House for some time, one begins to form a kind of automatic estimate as to the chances of getting any particular application through to a particular Minister, but I have been led to approach the Minister of Pensions in a mood of chastened pessimism—it may be true of any job a Department has to do—because after the lapse of time it is harder to establish the facts necessary to get what one wants. That impression remains in my mind.

The right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway, who has such a vast experience in dealing with this kind of case, has put the matter so thoroughly to-day, that he has eased the task of those who may follow, and I intend to take up only a few minutes in addressing the House.
One particular class of case has occurred to me again and again, and that is, that of the widow who claims that the death of her husband was due to pensionable disability, and it seems that almost any and every excuse is taken to find that it is not so. If pensionable disability is put on the death certificate as the cause of death, and there is something else added, perhaps some cardiac complaint, that seems to be good enough, in nine cases out of ten, to form the ground for a decision that death is not wholly due to war service. When one considers that in the nature of things, when all things come to an end, in all probability subsidiary and secondary diseases and symptoms occur, and I wish that the Ministry could take a more generous view and give the benefit of the doubt more often than, in my experience, it has been found to do. The same kind of thing occurs when a man is suffering from a certain definitely pensionable disability and some secondary disability attacks him, thereby greatly increasing his incapacity. Too little attention is paid to the common sense certainty that the man's power of resistance to disease has, in so many cases, been gravely lessened by his original pensionable disability. When that is so, the most generous view should always be taken, and I am not satisfied that it is. It is because of problems of this kind—I have put only two, but the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway put a great number which he had found as a result of his great experience—that I support him wholeheartedly in two of the suggestions that he made.
The case for a Select Committee was made out by his speech, and I earnestly urge that it should be given the full consideration of the Government. He made the admirable suggestion that the Minister should have at his disposal an emergency fund to deal with cases which do not come strictly within the warrant. In so many cases—and I am sure that the Minister must recognise them—he has to end a letter which has been most amicably expressed by saying, "Unfortunately


there is no fund at my disposal to deal with the case." The House would be delighted if the Minister were put in the position that he did not have to end letters in that way. It would be, of course, a matter for his discretion. One could not possibly envisage a tremendous extension of expenditure, but there are cases where, I am sure, the Minister himself must wish that he had at his disposal some fund which would enable him to take an action which he feels to be right and reasonable but which, at the present moment, he cannot take. With these few words I would again say how welcome it is that we should have this discussion before we go away, because there are a great many ex-service men up and down the country who have rather been thinking that they were being forgotten in this House, and they will be reassured by this Debate.

12.41 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: I join with the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) in welcoming this discussion at this time of the year, because I believe that there is a very widespread feeling not only among ex-service men, but among those who, like myself, were too young to serve in the last War, that the time is now ripe to re-examine the question and the warrants under which pensions are granted. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the ex-service man to establish the facts which the Minister properly requires him to do. For example, over the period of years there have been deaths, as referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, among ex-service men. There have also been deaths in the ranks of the normal medical attendants looking after these ex-service men, and similarly there have been removals. I have a case in which I am engaged at the moment, with which the Minister is very kindly dealing, where an ex-naval man of pre-war service, and having served in Jutland, has subsequently gone blind. He is endeavouring to prove that his blindness is due to war service. The difficulty he is up against is that his medical attendant has removed. He lives in a distant country village, and the difficulties in this case are really very great indeed. I would welcome some action by the Minister. If in the present day we could relax, if at all possible, these regulations

upon which the Minister properly insists, it might be possible for the Ministry, as its work is being reduced, to place more assistance, by means of travelling representatives, at the disposal of claimants. I put forward that suggestion for the consideration of the Minister.
The only other point to which I wish to refer is the question of the prematurely aged. As recently as Tuesday last the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), in referring to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, said that the passage of years had aged him. I find that the Foreign Secretary has occupied his post for only two years. Many of these men served for four years, and if arduous service in this House shows—in the hair only perhaps—on those who have the honour to be Members of His Majesty's Government, it shows equally on the ordinary man who served in the War. When a man goes to an employer, the employer not unnaturally and unreasonably selects a man with the appearance of greatest virility and strength, and the ex-service man is perhaps, therefore, penalised in some way. I hope that at this time of Christmas, when we saw by last evening's newspapers that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport had given London a Christmas box, my hon. Friend will imitate that example and make an announcement of good cheer for the ex-service men.

12.45 p.m.

Major Milner: I, with those who have already spoken, very much welcome this Debate, because I feel that the Ministry of Pensions have, in the course of years, got into somewhat of a groove, and it is time that some awakening process took place. In some of the matters which they administer a very unsatisfactory state of affairs exists. I want to deal with one particular question with which the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. F. O. Roberts) did not deal. I refer to the rather delicate and difficult subject of the termination of pensions payable to widows, on the ground of alleged unworthy conduct on their part. As the House knows, there is power under Article 10 of the Royal Warrant vested in the Minister to terminate or suspend any pension in a case where in his opinion the pensioner is unworthy of a grant from public funds.
There are, no doubt—and I should be the last to dispute the fact—a great many cases where it is right and proper, the facts being as they are, to terminate a widow's pension. I make no defence of or excuse for a soldier's widow who is guilty of a course of misconduct extending over a period of time; but there are many cases where the pension is terminated without a scintilla of evidence which would be accepted in any courts of justice. I am speaking from my own experience of a number of these cases, in regard to which I was more particularly active in years gone by, and from that experience it seems to me that the whole procedure in these matters from start to finish is extremely unsatisfactory, un-English and unfair, and is designed to put widows under a disadvantage rather than the advantageous position in which, in my opinion, and I hope in the opinion of the House, they ought to be put. One gets the feeling that the whole question is prejudiced and biased from the commencement.
In my experience—and I am speaking only from the cases which I have taken up—the Ministry seems to decide on inferential evidence only. I have had a number of cases where, as far as I know—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—there has been no direct evidence of any kind. The procedure is usually this, that the Ministry or some official of the Ministry receives an anonymous letter from some source or other, perhaps a neighbour. I asked the Minister a question to-day whether he would give particulars of the proportion of reports that had originated in anonymous letters, but he was unable to give me those particulars. Perhaps he will give the House some idea in the course of this Debate, because I assert—and I have some grounds for what I am saying—that 90 per cent. of the reports made as to these widows emanate and originate from anonymous letters.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): That is quite inaccurate. Only a small minority originate that way.

Major Milner: I am not going to say that I do not accept what the Minister says, but I have been informed by other occupants of his office that that was the fact. Whether that be so or not, the Ministry receives information from some source. They then make inquiries. I

do not know who are their inquiry agents. I have heard various stories, I have heard that they are members of the British Legion, that they are voluntary agents, that they are paid inquiry agents, and so forth. Perhaps the Minister will tell us the truth in that regard. I only know that in the cases that have come within my own experience the agents of the Ministry have made inquiries. They make inquiries from neighbours or from the landlord. They pick up any gossip in a village or town and put down as gospel truth every bit of tittle-tattle they get. They even go so far as to misrepresent their position in making these inquiries. I know of a case where the Ministry's representative represented himself as an insurance agent in order to make his inquiries. In another case the agent went to a house where a widow resided and asked - whether Mrs. So-and-So was in, using the name of the man with whom the widow was supposed to be associating. The reply was that there was no Mrs. So-and-So there, but that the woman interrogated was Mrs. Jones, or whatever her name might be. The point is, that the Ministry's emissary distinctly endeavoured to trap that woman, in an unguarded moment, into saying that she was the wife of the man with whom she was supposed to be associating.
When the information has been obtained the procedure, as far as I can understand, is that the report is passed on to the local committee and up to the Special Grants Committee. The Special Grants Committee appears to be a very curious body. From what the Minister has told me to-day, it consists of 14 members, presided over by a distinguished ex-permanent secretary at the Home Office. On it there are a number of people who have had some experience of public affairs. The committee sits in secret. Its names are not publicly known. I assume perhaps the Minister will tell us that they make various reports to the Ministry of Pensions on these cases and also on other matters. These 14 people sit in judgment subject, of course, to the Minister's final responsibility on these cases, and on many other matters. It is remarkable that during the past year out of those 14 members there has been an average attendance of only four. I do not know whether this is a paid or an unpaid committee. I imagine that it is an honorary committee, but it seems to me a very disgraceful state of affairs that out of 14


members it has an average attendance of only four. What confidence can the general public have in a committee which has an attendance of only about 20 per cent.?
That committee sits in secret. It has before it, I understand, the reports from the inquiry agents in writing. It is not permitted, apparently, to hear viva voce evidence. The accused is not permitted to appear before the committee or to be represented before the committee. The accused woman has no right to cross-examination of any kind or to know any particulars of the evidence which is put in writing and used in secret before that committee. The committee, apparently, accept these reports as true. They start from that hypothesis and a verdict is given. From the figures given to me by the Minister this morning, in over 50 per cent. of the cases reported the pension is terminated. Apparently, there is no warning given. There is no suspension of pension, but it would appear that in a few cases the pension is put under administration of some kind. There is no right of appeal and no periodical review. I asked in my question what action is taken on the reports, and all that the Minister gives me is the number of pensions terminated, but no cases of any warnings given or any suspension of pensions such as the committee or the Ministry are empowered to give. It seems to me that those powers are unused by the Ministry. The simple fact is that in over 50 per cent. of the cases the verdict is "guilty," and the pension is immediately terminated. There is no right of appeal. There is apparently no review by the Ministry of these cases at regular intervals. In my experience I have not known one case which has ever been put back on pension once the pension has been terminated. When we receive particulars of these cases we are not permitted to see the papers in the case. That is my experience. I have made inquiries from the predecessor of the Minister, and I have not been permitted to see the reports or the evidence on which the pension of my constituent was terminated. Why, I do not know.
If we want to submit additional evidence to the Ministry it must be in writing. I have to give my case fully to the Minister, but the Ministry do not give me their case. I am not permitted to see the evidence. I do not know whether

it is good, bad or indifferent, or whether they have any evidence at all on which they make a decision. In the majority of cases it is purely hearsay evidence, and would not be accepted in any court. The Ministry write sympathetic letters saying that they will be happy to have any representations I care to make in writing, or any representations by the widow whose pension has been terminated. Again, in my experience, nothing happens. We are up against a stone wall. Frequently the Ministry do not reply to the correspondence inside a month, except by a bare acknowledgement, and very frequently their letters are a complete evasion of the question. The whole system, in my view, is extremely unsatisfactory and reflects little credit on the Ministry of Pensions.
Let me take a particular case. I will not mention names, but I have known this case for a considerable time, and have almost given it up as a bad job. A widow living at different times at different addresses acted as housekeeper to a man and at all these addresses without exception other members of the family, father, mother, brother and sister, lived in the same house. As work became available in one district or another so did the whole family, together with the lodger, go to a house in the different districts. All the time these other members of the widow's family lived in the same house, and the man in question was an old friend of the family; he had known them for over 30 years, and there is not the slightest tittle of evidence as to misconduct. That pension was terminated. The man who was alleged to have associated with the widow was never interviewed. The person who could admit or deny the truth of the assertions which the Ministry were making was never interviewed. I do not get my information of this case from the Ministry, but from various other sources. In this particular case it is alleged by the Ministry that the widow was known as Mrs. So-and-so—the name of the lodger. Everybody from whom I have made inquiries denies that statement. It is the case in which the inquiry agent endeavoured to trap the widow by asking whether Mrs. So-and-so lived there.
It was also alleged that the widow was on the voters' list in the same


name as the lodger. Apparently, the Ministry did not ascertain the facts, or, if they did, took no notice of them. But the facts are that the lodger's unmarried daughter has the same Christian name as the widow, and when the voters' list was compiled the daughter was living in the house, and in that way the daughter's name was put on the voters' list. Then it was alleged that the widow was drawing her pension not in the village where she lived, but in an adjoining town, and that she was thereby trying to hide the fact that she was a pensioner, that there was something sinister about it. The Minister regarded this as one of the reasons for terminating the pension. The truth was that the widow had drawn her pension in the village, but because her last residence was near to a large town to which she went to do her shopping, and which she had known from her childhood, she drew her pension in the town. What was more natural than that she should do so? I have seen that woman, a respectable hard-working, decent woman. There is another case where a man had been dead two years and yet the Ministry terminated the widow's pension without warning, and without any suspension of the pension.
The real fact is that the Ministry, or the Special Grants Committee, decide purely on hearsay evidence, purely on the reports of their inquiry agents, which they always accept as true. Such evidence would not be accepted in any court of law. I am told that there are members of the Special Grants Committee who for a long time have been unhappy about this state of affairs, and are not at all satisfied that justice is being done. In my submission the whole procedure is wrong. Before such a serious step is taken as terminating a pension there should be in all cases a right of the pensioner to appear and in all cases the widow should be supplied with a precis of the evidence. The court should have legal members, or the tribunal should be a judge or some other legal luminary appointed for the purpose. There should be a right of appeal on new facts. If the verdict is guilty, then, in appropriate cases, I submit that a warning would be quite sufficient, or a period of probation, or a suspension of the pension. All cases should be reviewed at regular intervals, and in the case of a review the widow

whose pension is being terminated should have notice of the review and should be allowed to appear before some tribunal. The pension, of course, ought to be renewable, and regularly renewed in appropriate cases, as, for example, in the case of a single foolish act of misconduct.
Why it is that there are no particulars of these cases in the Ministry's report? I have looked at the last report of the Ministry of Pensions, but it gives no particulars as to how many widows have had their pensions terminated. No information is given in it as to the constitution of the Special Grants Committee. Why is there all that secrecy in a matter of this sort? Is there, or is there not, something to hide? No statistics are given on the basis of which we can form any opinion of the true state of affairs, and in order to obtain information, we have to address questions to the Minister. Moreover, the reports of the Ministry seem to be published at very irregular intervals, since the last report in the Library was published in July, 1936. Why is it that no report has been published for the last 18 months or thereabouts?
Hon. Members and the Minister ought to remember at all times that these women are the widows of men who gave their lives in order that others might live. I knew many of these men, and they believed that their widows and children would be looked after by a grateful country, that no advantage would be taken of them, and that they would receive all sympathy. I hesitate to say what my feelings might lead me to say, but in this matter, as in so many others, I feel that many of the soldiers who fought in the Great War have been misled and betrayed. Year by year the Ministry of Pensions are saving many thousands of pounds at the expense of soldiers' widows, whose pensions are terminated by a mere stroke of the pen of the Minister and who have to go to the Poor Law authorities, to depend on relatives or sometimes even to beg. The whole position is a gross scandal, and a reflection on the Ministry of Pensions and on every Member of the House. Let me make it clear that I make no personal reflection upon the members of the Special Grants Committee, who are appointed by the Minister. Of them, the only thing I say is that they ought to attend to their duties and not to have the record of


attendances which has been read out to us to-day. Secondly, they ought not swallow at its face value every report put in front of them by those who make these inquiries. Thirdly, surely they ought to apply some principle of law in regard to this evidence.
I expect the Minister will say that he will be very happy to consider any representations or evidence that I may put before him, and to have any of these cases reconsidered. That will not satisfy me. I have no confidence in the judgment of any of these tribunals. A moment or two ago the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) was sitting on the benches opposite. Let me say that I should be quite content to hand all the evidence on both sides to some independent gentleman having legal knowledge, who would make an independent review. I should be very happy if these cases were taken before any independent tribunal, so that those who decided them were not judges in their own cause.
I wish now to address a few specific questions to the Minister. What is the proportion of acquitted cases to the number of cases reported? What is the proportion of warnings and suspensions to the number of complete terminations? Is the Minister willing that accused widows should have the right to appear or to be represented, and if the law does not provide for that as at present, to take steps to alter the law? Is he willing that any responsible Member of Parliament should have the right to see the files and the evidence on which his or her constituent has had a pension terminated? What is the proportion of cases voluntarily reviewed by the Minister? What is the proportion of pensions which, having once been terminated, are renewed? Finally, is the Minister willing either to have set up a Select Committee, as suggested by my right hon. Friend, or alternatively, to do the very least that the House can expect, to have these cases reviewed by independent tribunals? Or does he desire all those women, of whom in my view there are quite a number, whose pensions have been unjustly terminated, to suffer for ever?
I wish now to deal with another point altogether. There are cases where the Ministry obtains, or professes to obtain,

an independent medical opinion, usually, I believe, from some medical gentleman nominated by the Medical Association. Is it true that in some cases—I do not know the proportion—those opinions are given merely on the basis of the papers, which include medical reports given by other medical men, and that the independent medical gentleman in some cases never has an opportunity of making a personal examination, and gives his judgment, which may have such serious effects, solely on a perusal of the previous medical reports obtained by the Ministry? I happen to know of one case where that was the position. I submit to the House that it is extremely unsatisfactory that any medical man should presume to give evidence in such a serious matter without making a personal and independent examination of the person concerned. I conclude by expressing the hope that this Debate will stir up some interest in this matter and possibly awaken the Ministry of Pensions from its mood of complacency, which has existed too long, and that it will lead to an improvement and the setting up of the Select Committee for which my right hon. Friend asked.

1.14 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: I do not intend to follow the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) in the particular topic which he has chosen, in his strictures on the Minister of Pensions, or in the heat he has shown in his observations; but I entirely agree with him on two matters. In the first place, like other hon. Members who have spoken, I am glad that this subject has been chosen for consideration, and I think every hon. Member will agree that it is well worth our giving time to it. Secondly, I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we ought not to forget what we owe to these men. We ought to remember the promises that were made to them when they were asked to serve their country in the War, we ought not to forget the services which they rendered, and the victory which they helped to give us. Therefore, I feel that we ought to be sure in our minds that not only justice, but full justice, has been given to the claims of these men for pensions, and that there should be no suspicion that in any way we have not been fair to them.
My own experience with the Minister has been such that I cannot support


the suggestion that there is any lack of sympathy on his part. As a new Member of this House I am not familiar with procedure, but when I have put forward claims for pensions, I have found that if a claimant was not eligible for a pension, and if there was some other source from which it was possible to help him, the Minister has gone out of his way to indicate to me what I ought to do. Like other hon. Members I have had to bring before his notice many claims and I wish to pay my tribute to the sympathy with which those claims have been received. Because I have had that evidence of the Minister's sympathy in these matters I support all the more confidently the plea for a Select Committee of inquiry. I believe that there is, among ex-service men, a certain amount of dissatisfaction with their treatment. The only way to decide whether there is any justification for that dissatisfaction or not is an inquiry.
I have served as a member of a guardians committee, and it was most humiliating to me to see ex-service men coming before that committee seeking for relief. A Select Committee should be able to establish whether or not that sort of thing is necessary; whether a man who applies for relief is entitled to a pension, or whether he is receiving the full amount of pension to which he is entitled. Another point which ought to be considered by such a committee of inquiry is whether, in dealing with applications for pensions, sufficient attention is paid at present to the opinions of a man's own doctor. We have been told in connection with the health campaign for which the Ministry of Health is responsible, that full consideration must be given to the part played by the general practitioner and the family doctor in connection with national health. We know that in our own households the opinion of the family doctor is of value because he has known the family for many years and is able to add to his medical knowledge an experience of his patients as individuals which no other doctor, however eminent in his profession, can profess to have. Therefore, when we have the experience, as many hon. Members have, of getting one opinion from the man's own doctor as to whether a disability is due to war service or not, and a contrary opinion from another doctor, one feels that more attention ought to be paid to the opinion of

the family doctor than is paid to it at present.
I would also like such a committee to consider the important question of the prematurely aged. Members of the House know that a real problem in connection with unemployment is that of the ex-service men of 50 years and over. There can be no doubt that ability to secure employment is affected by war service, and that these men are suffering in that respect, as a result of what they have done for their country. We feel that they should not be so penalised. I, therefore, strongly support the plea, which has been advanced with such ability and moderation by the right hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate, that a Select Committee should be appointed by the Minister to inquire into these questions. If the Minister accedes to that request, it will be further evidence of his practical sympathy, and it will bring home to the ex-service man and to the country, clearly and definitely, the fact that Members of this House are determined that these men shall receive just treatment, and that if any debt is owing to them we are willing to pay it. I cannot see any objection to such an inquiry. If its result is to vindicate the Ministry, and show that all is well, the Minister should be pleased at having had the inquiry. If its result is to show that there is still more to be done in regard to this subject, then I believe it is the wish of the House and the country that that should be done.

1.21 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I join in the appeal for the appointment of a Select Committee. Since I came into this House in 1922 I have taken a deep interest in the administration of the Ministry of Pensions. At first I had a feeling that many of the difficulties connected with that administration were due to the hard-heartedness of the Minister in charge. It was only after long experience that I found that these difficulties were not due so much to the Minister as to the procedure which has grown up round the administration of the Pensions Acts. Every Minister whom I have approached, whatever his political colour, has shown sympathy with the cases I have put to him, but has found himself tied by Act of Parliament in such a way that he could do very little. This House has a great responsibility in this matter, and the time has


come for us to see that the victims of the Great War are not left in poverty and misery if we can provide means of dealing with the problems which now exist. Among those problems is that of the seven years' limit. In order to get over that point, a dispensing power was used, and the Minister set up a procedure which operated to help many people who were in difficult circumstances owing to the working of the seven years' rule. But even that alteration is inadequate to deal with all the cases, and I submit that a prima facie case has been made out for doing something more to deal with the operation of the seven years' rule.
In every aspect of the working of the Ministry something similar could be said. The Minister, when he was dealing with this question previously, told, for example, how in cases where there was a conflict of medical testimony he had arranged to give an ultimate appeal to an eminent physician appointed, I think, by the Royal College of Physicians; and yesterday, in reply to a question of mine, he was good enough to agree in a particular case that there should be an appeal to a distinguished physician in this way. But I am not convinced that this procedure meets the case at all, because, as I understand it, the Ministry puts at the disposal of this physician the records of the case and asks him to pronounce on those records. That is only a one-sided presentation of the case, and what I think is necessary, where there is a conflict of medical testimony, is that there should be a medical referee before whom the applicant should be able to put his case for adjudication.
In the particular case to which I refer, a distinguished medical authority in the Glasgow Royal Infirmary gave a certificate in favour of a woman, and other physicians gave certificates, but all that was put aside by the Ministry, and I understand now that the Ministry is going, in view of those representations, to put its records before some other physician and to say, "Have we acted rightly?" I shall not be satisfied, and I do not think any hon. Member would be satisfied, with that. There should be a presentation of the case for the applicant by some person who can really put the case effectively as against the case for the Ministry, and I would ask the

Minister that, before the case is put to the medical referee who will be appointed by the Royal College of Physicians, the applicant should be asked to submit the medical evidence anew directly through the Ministry to the medical referee. I would also like to ask that before further steps are taken in the case, the Minister should send to me a full statement of the procedure that he is going to pursue in this matter.
I mention this particular case only in order to say that I do not think the reference to an ultimate medical authority in this way is a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. My own view is that the medical referee should be the medical adviser of the applicant. If an applicant can bring the medical testimony of his own medical adviser, and if there is doubt in the case, according to the old principle the benefit of the doubt should be given to the ex-service man. It has been said again and again in these Debates that if there is any doubt, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the ex-service men. I myself raised that point on one occasion with the Minister through personal correspondence, and I was given the reply that the Ministry could not trace this undertaking, but if I am not mistaken, it was given to the House of Commons during the termination of office of the present Postmaster-General, when the administration was being questioned with regard to hard cases. I say that the ultimate medical authority should be the medical adviser of the person concerned, because he knows more about the case than do the distinguished medical gentlemen of the Ministry down here.
Another way in which, I think, these cases should be dealt with, is that there should be a pensions committee set up by the local authority in the district. I know that there is a local pensions committee, and that there are various people interested who work on it, but I would like a more responsible committee, a committee that is responsible to the electors in the district, and if it came to a decision approving a pension, that decision should be determinate—it should determine a case—and there should be nobody in Whitehall who should be entitled to say, "You people locally are all wrong." If that is not possible, I say that the present local pensions committee should be the final authority with regard to a case. It presents a case to the Minister, and it


feels that a pension should be given, and then somebody up here looks over the case and decides that the local pensions committee is wrong and that it is not a case in which a pension should be given.
There is another point. It is the case of the woman who got married to a man after he had left the Army or after he had received his wound. It was laid down that a pension should not be given in such a case, the idea behind this rule being that possibly women would marry wounded men in order that they might get a pension on their husband's decease. But it is a long term of years since the War now, and I submit that in the case of a man who got married even after his wound, if the marriage has existed for a certain time, there should be reconsideration of the question whether, in such a case, the widow should not be granted a pension. All these kinds of questions are worth while considering by a Select Committee. There is another type of case that irritates me exceedingly, and that is the case with regard to chest troubles. I have had replies from the Minister that his medical authorities have decided that the amount of aggravation of bronchitis has passed away. I myself have suffered from bronchitis, and I know that when a medical man is talking like that, he is talking through his hat. How can he tell about the amount of aggravation by looking at a person, tapping his chest, putting his stethoscope on him, and hearing nothing, but letting on that he does, and carrying on this magic game of make-belief of the physician? They are giving a sounding, and they are acting in the same way as any witch doctor of a native tribe. They tell us that the aggravation has passed away, or they say that 40 per cent. or 30 per cent. of the trouble is due to service.
All this shows that there has been injected into the administration of pensions a type of mind which has failed to realise that when the Ministry of Pensions was set up the country wanted these people to be generously treated. It is always argued that there is a responsibility for expenditure from the public purse in order that no unworthy person got a pension. This guarding of the public purse has led to unworthy persons getting pensions and many worthy people not getting them. Wherever you go throughout the country, you will find in practically every street a hard case of an

ex-service man who had been refused a pension, or the case of the widow of an ex-service man. The Minister said, in reply to a question the other day, that he would like evidence from me of this widespread discontent. I will issue a challenge to him now. I will go with him to his own Division and I will guarantee that in practically every street, if we borrow a chair in each street and say what we have come for, we will in about five minutes have an ex-service man or his widow telling us about his or her hard case.
There is any amount of evidence. Every time I visit my Division I get new heart-breaking cases. Members on all sides are united in desiring something to be done. If it be said that I am taking an extravagant view, a select committee will make the position plain. It will give the opportunity for the British Legion and for people who have had experience of the hard treatment of pensioners to put their evidence forward. So many new hard cases are arising because so many of the men who served are only now beginning to feel the effects of their war service. I sent a case to the Ministry only this week. It is one of those cases of a man who is assured that his present physical condition is due to the effect of his war service. The doctor says, "How can we tell? Men in civil life who were not in the War are showing similar disabilities." If the man's own medical adviser, who has had experience of him during the years since he came back, has come to that conclusion, his voice should be of greater authority than that of some doctor in London.

All these questions need ventilation, and I cannot understand why the Minister should reject this widespread appeal. It is not an appeal only from this side of the House; it is also the demand of the Conservative party that there should be the fullest inquiry, because no one wishes ex-service men not to be treated decently. The Minister will be well advised to seize upon the opportunity that is presented to him by this appeal from all sides of the House to appoint a select committee with wide powers of reference, so that the whole position can be inquired into and recommendations made as to the necessary steps to avoid injustice to those who served in the Great War. There are many of these cases that have caused heart-break to all of us, and if a select


committee is set up I am assured that it will be one of the most valuable committees that the House of Commons has appointed, and that it will be the means of helping to bring justice to many poor people who have been in despair.

1.41 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I am sure that my hon. Friends will welcome the support which is being given to the appeal we are making by the two hon. Members who have spoken from the other side. I would refer in particular to the speech of the hon. Member who indicated clearly that he was reflecting the feeling in the industrial centre which he represents. What applies to his area can be applied to every industrial area in the country. I want to produce evidence that can go on the records of the House in order that during the Recess the Minister and the Cabinet can consider it. I am convinced that if they are prepared to give the same sympathetic consideration to this question as Lord Baldwin was prepared to do 18 months ago, something will be forthcoming as a result of this Debate. Had the national crisis not have arisen when it did, and had not the ex-Prime Minister had to give all his attention to it, this question would have been dealt with before now. The Notice of Motion which has been on the Order Paper for nearly 18 months should go on the records of the House so that the Minister, the Cabinet, and hon Members on the other side can consider it. The Notice of Motion is:
That a Select Committee be appointed to investigate the administration of the Ministry of Pensions with particular reference to war pensions and applications for war service pensions; that the Committee have power to receive evidence from ex-service men, widows of ex-service men, and to send for persons, papers, and records.
One would have thought that the feeling that existed at the Conservative conference at Scarborough in October would have reflected itself in this House among the Government supporters before now. As, however, the Government supporters have not been prepared to reflect the feeling of that conference, it behoves us, with our national responsibility and as representing the people of the country, to reflect it. There is no need to remind the Minister of what was said. He himself took up the attitude at the conference that the

country was honouring its pledges to ex-service men, and there were loud cries of "No" from all parts of the conference. I could quote extract after extract, but as my time is short owing to so many other Members desiring to take part in the Debate, I will only say that I hope the Minister will be good enough to re-read the report of that conference.
We suggest that while those investigations are taking place, more generous treatment should be given to the applicants for pensions and to those who desire medical attention. In the Coal Bill it is proposed to compensate the royalty owners to the extent of £65,000,000, and the Government have also decided to allocate £10,000,000 in order that the Commission can cover any difficulties which may arise. If it is right to do that in the case of the Coal Bill, a substantial sum ought to be placed at the disposal of the Ministry of Pensions in order that the benefit of the doubt may be given to all applicants for a pension or applicants for treatment. Let me make it clear that under no circumstances do we want this matter to be dealt with on a charitable basis. For too long ex-service men have been left to charitable institutions. They ought to be a national responsibility of the Government, and of the Ministry of Pensions in particular. When ex-service men apply for pensions, if their medical record is such as to show that they should receive pensions or medical treatment it ought not to be left to charitable institutions to deal with the cases. It ought to be the right of a man to claim that, seeing that he served his country, he should receive the treatment which the country would desire him to have.
I cannot approach this question in the detached way of some hon. Members. I always feel that I myself might easily have been one of those men. As I go about the industrial centres and London I see a large number of men begging for coppers, playing musical instruments and walking along the roads in groups and on crutches. Evidentally they have been wounded. As I pass them I often think I might easily have been one of them, or that my dependants might have been in the same position as their dependants. I cannot approach this question in a detached way. I would remind the House of what we owe to these men. I have a copy of a poster in the Imperial War Museum. It was an appeal for Welshmen to join the


Army as pioneers and it is signed by D. Watts Morgan and others. That is typical of the appeals which were made in industrial centres during the War. The men for whom we are speaking risked their all for the country, and now the country desires that the Government should treat them in a worthy manner, and that they ought not to be forced to go on to the streets or to beg from door to door. If only we can get justice for these men they ought to be prevented from going on the roads, because any one with any humanitarian feelings feels a shudder down the back when he sees them suffering as they are. When justice is meted out to them by the Ministry of Pensions those men should no longer be allowed to appear on the streets.
In the last 10 years there has been a reduction in expenditure by the Ministry of Pensions of approximately £24,000,000 and we say that that economy has gone on long enough. I would specifically ask the Minister of Pensions to tell us who it is that is preventing justice being done. When I talk with the Minister I find that he is sympathetic; when I talk with Government supporters they are sympathetic; individual members of the Government with whom I speak are sympathetic; and in the library and in the corridors of this House Member after Member expresses sympathy with our point of view since last I spoke on this question. They say they desire that this, that and the other should be done.
Seeing there is that sympathetic feeling in all parts of the House I repeat, "Who is preventing something being done? Is it the Treasury?" If it is the Treasury, I would remind hon. Members that it is the House of Commons that represents the people, and that it is the Cabinet which is the Government. If it is the Treasury which is holding up this matter, it is time the Cabinet dealt with the issue. Is it true that a policy of economy has been laid down for the Ministry of Pensions? We are all prepared to accept the verdict of a Select Committee on this issue. We are not asking for anything extravagant or unreasonable, only that a Select Committee should be set up to investigate the whole position, investigate the grievances of ex-service men, and the widows of ex-service men in particular. We have sufficient confidence in our case, we consider it so reasonable that we should have no hesitation in

awaiting the findings of that Select Committee.
I do not want to go into individual cases, although I have upstairs a large pile of correspondence dealing with them. The only one I will quote is that of a man who joined the Army in 1898. He served in India and was on active service and under fire on two occasions. This man was on active service all the time from 1914 to 1918. He was wounded in the Dardanelles, and only those who went through the campaign in the Dardanelles can really appreciate what our men did endure there. He was wounded also in France. I have a photograph of the man. When young he was a proud young man, a picture of manhood, a true patriot if ever a patriot lived. Now this man receives 10s. a week old age pension and 5s. from the public assistance committee. He is a broken-hearted man, so broken hearted that he is thinking of applying to go into the institution. It is for such men that we are speaking this morning.
Not only are we interesting ourselves in this matter; a large number of organisations throughout the country are taking it up. I have here the last report of the officers' benevolent department of the British Legion. As did previous reports, it reflects the feeling which we have been trying to present to-day. I have received many letters from branches of the British Legion supporting our attitude. In the Minister of Pensions' own report there is an analysis of the administration of War pensions from 1916, and although I cannot agree with the conclusions I think there is sufficient evidence in the report to show the need for investigation on the lines we suggest. When a person is affected with physical defect or disease he is handicapped in life, especially if he has to depend for his living on manual labour. Only those who have had to depend upon manual labour know how great that handicap can be. Physical defects and diseases, most of which are attributable to War service, affect not only the men in obtaining their livelihood, but their wives and children, and are reflected in mental torture and economic difficulty, for which there is no excuse even in the present state of society, in view of the fact that those men were prepared to risk all.
New Zealand, Australia, Canada and America have a far better administration of war pensions. According to a report


which I have on the subject of Germany and other Continental countries, and to graphs which it contains, our treatment of ex-service men is better than in those countries, but that is not much consolation to us. In this country and the Dominions we set up an altogether higher standard of treatment, and we therefore ask that that standard should be maintained. It is not being maintained in the present pensions administration. I admit that local pension committees, and British Legion branches in particular, as well as many other voluntary organisations, have done, and continue to do, great Work on behalf of these men. The present position is unfair to the sacrifice and the voluntary work that is taking place in the organisations catering for ex-service men, and therefore, in justice to those organisations and to the men for whom we speak, we are not unreasonably asking that during the Christmas Recess the Government should consider the facts that have now been placed upon the records of the House—not only from these benches, but from others—and should see whether sufficient evidence has been put forward to warrant them instituting a Select Committee to investigate the grievances of the men.

1.59 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: I have risen because I want to put one or two medical points on this matter, and to bring to bear upon the discussion some of my personal experiences. I believe that there must be a large number of men who, if they had chosen to apply for pensions shortly after the War, would have obtained them. Some unsympathetic people used to say that a large proportion of the applicants were "swinging the lead," which is a well-known expression, and denied that a man entitled to a pension would fail to apply for it. That was by no means the case. There was, as everybody who was in the Service knows, a small proportion of expert lead-swingers, but most of those who applied had definite reason to do so. A demobilisation pension was given to some men, much to their surprise. I myself, when I was demobilised, received a pension without asking for it, on the ground of disability. Although I had been A.1. on enlistment I was now B.2, but that was due to the fact that I had recently had an attack of malaria, which passed off.
A great many people who ought to have pensions do not apply for them. There was a certain type of man who would do almost anything rather than apply for a pension. When I acted as medical referee for a considerable time, it was my experience that a number of people were so averse from applying for a pension that they came under the notice of the officials—in that case, myself—only when they were really at the last gasp. I remember very vividly a man who applied at the pensions office in Chelsea where I was acting as medical referee. He came in apologising for coming in, and saying that he did not feel quite all right, that there must be something the matter and he thought he really ought to have a certain amount of attention. I examined him, and wrote a note, folded it and hurriedly passed it to the clerk outside. I said in it: "You must do something for this man at once, under whatever paragraph of the regulations you do it, because he will be dead in three weeks." I was wrong. That man, who apologised for making the application, was dead in a fortnight and not three weeks. He was a very severe case of the after-effects of malaria, which he did not realise. There must be many such people who do not realise what is the matter with them.
There was the similar case, although not exactly for the same reason, of the man who was formerly a Captain in the Guards. His profession was that of mining engineer. After the War, although he had had a severe time in the War, he did not apply for a pension. He had, as a matter of fact, been a bombing officer, and had been blown up on a number of occasions. He had had a great deal of suffering and had been in hospital. He did not apply for a pension when he was demobilised because he thought he could go back to the part of the country where he had been living before and take up a position again as mining engineer at a good salary of something over £1,000 a year. He did not want to live on the country, and therefore did not apply. He was able to carry on his work as mining engineer for only a short time, when he broke down with neurasthenia. He belonged to some of the most famous clubs in London and was well known to Members of this House and of another place, but he gradually went down step by step in the social scale until finally


he reached the point at which I made his acquaintance. [Interruption.] Yes, hon. Members will realise that that indicates very serious degradation.
I made his acquaintance not only as doctor. Having need of a housekeeper for the house where I was carrying on my medical practice, I interviewed a woman who explained that if she was to come as housekeeper she must bring her husband with her. I met her husband, and he explained who he was. I said it was very unfortunate, and asked what was his history, and she told me. This was a gentleman who had been a captain in the Guards, a man earning a large income, who had not chosen to apply. The last I saw of that ex-captain in the Guards who did not apply for a pension was when he was brushing my boots in the kitchen. It does seem to me to be rather a tragic kind of case. I believe there are a large number of people of that kind who ought now to be receiving pensions but who never applied for one reason or another, and I consider that a review of cases of this class, which now must be proportionately more numerous than the other classes of cases, ought to be undertaken.
The question of premature old age is a very important and a very real one. Old age, of course, is a disease at the present time, and a good many people are becoming prematurely aged. Undoubtedly, the men who went through the War and suffered a great deal of shock and stress are now showing signs of that stress. I am not going to weary the House by giving many medical cases, as I might have done, but from my own experience I know of a large number of cases in which men have shown signs of premature break-up because of the strain to which they have been subjected, and it seems to me that, if a Select Committee were to review the question of this premature old age, they would find strong evidence of the existence of a great number of these cases who certainly ought to be looked after. The figures quoted by my right hon. Friend of the proportion of deaths of ex-service men as compared with the proportion among adult men of the same age—16 per cent. in the case of ex-service men, and 7.6 per cent. in the case of men of the same age who had not had that experience—suggest very strongly that there should be an investigation.
I believe that, if the existing ex-service men were medically examined—and I make this as a concrete suggestion—and if they were compared with men of the same age who had not suffered from the same disability, or perhaps had not been through the War, the ex-service men would be found to be suffering from very definite disabilities owing to the nature of their war service. There is no doubt that everyone who went through the War at the front for any length of time suffered from it to some extent. A great many men suffered from it very badly indeed. I believe that on these grounds there is a strong case for a review of a large number of these cases. I believe there is a very large number of what I may call concealed cases of men who ought to be in receipt of pensions and are not in receipt of pensions, and I very strongly support the plea made by my right hon. Friend for the setting up of a Select Committee.

2.9 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I was hoping that an even more rapid method of dealing with the complaints which have been mentioned would have appealed to the Government than that of a Select Committee, but I am prepared to support the setting up of a Select Committee to deal with these matters. I was rather surprised when the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) expressed just a little surprise himself that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) had shown some heat when he was speaking. I thought he had not shown sufficient heat, in view of the cases that he quoted to the House. I would ask the Minister, whether, in view of all the cases that have been submitted to him, he himself feels happy at the number of refusals he has to make in the cases of men who, as the last speaker related, would not, even though they might well have been entitled to do so, claim a pension, because they did not desire to become pensioners.
I have come acress more than one case of that kind. We now find that, with the methods adopted in industrial and commercial life in this country, with the rush and scramble to make a livelihood, these men are now feeling fully the effects of the service they rendered to the country, and many of them, quite rightly,


feel bitter when the country which promised them so much in 1914, which promised clearly that they and their relatives would be looked after, now turns them down at a time when they are feeling the full effects of the service which they then rendered. I know we are reminded at times that the Royal Warrant does not allow these men to be entitled to pensions because of their refusal to claim, or because secondary causes are found—because there is some other point which brings in some kind of doubt with regard to their particular condition. But, there was no doubt in the statements made in 1914 when the country wanted the men. Those statements were not meticulously examined as to whether there were going to be qualifications in connection with the pensions which would be granted to men who had rendered service to the country. I hope that a Select Committee will be set up, and that it will engage upon its work from day to day in order that a speedy report may be presented.
I want now to deal briefly with a point which was stressed very strongly by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds. It is with regard to the Special Grants Committee. I will try if I can to be temperate in my language, but my experience of the performances of that committee is such that I really cannot understand any body of men and women in this country acting in the way that the Special Grants Committee act in cases which come before them. Not only do they refuse to face the person charged with her accuser, but they will not make known who makes the accusation against the woman. I am sure it will be a surprise to every decent-minded person in this country when they understand that there exists in this land at this time a committee which will accept any gossip, after a little investigation in the locality, against a widow, will believe it, and then will deprive her of her pension. I am not going to refer to cases in detail. It would be wrong to give names in this House, because, once a charge is made against a woman, you have to be very careful not to use her name in public, because of what her neighbours and the public generally will think attaches to her until she is proved innocent. But the Special Grants Committee have decided, I suppose, or someone has

decided for them, that British methods are not those to be applied to the widow of an ex-service man. She is guilty because someone has gossiped about her—guilty even if there is no proof—and then she is called upon to prove herself innocent.
That is not the case when a man or woman is accused even of murder. In the courts of this country a person is treated as innocent until he is proved guilty. He has to be faced with his accusers and witnesses have to give evidence on which there can be cross-examination. Dates and times and places have to be stated, and every opportunity given the accused person of defending himself. With these widows that is not the case. I know of one who has asked time and time again to be faced with her accusers. That case has been going on for 2½ years. During all that time the committee have been taking evidence from various people and trying to clear up the matter. Throughout that investigation there has not appeared anything which I can find which had the slightest appearance of proof of guilt in the case of this widow. Yet she has been deprived of her pension for 2½ years. I found that at one period of the investigation even the record of her family was gone into. I do not know what would happen to Members of this House if in addition to anything that can be urged against them the records of their families were taken into account. I am afraid things would look black for some of them.
In addition to that, I discovered a woman who confessed that she was one of those who had accused this widow of these offences without having the slightest knowledge of them. She said that she was intensely sorry and deeply regretted the fact, and said that she had done it because someone had instigated her to do it out of revenge. When this was put before the Special Grants Committee, despite the fact that the woman declared that she had made these charges falsely, the committee said that the woman had never laid the charge. To-day that widow is still deprived of her pension. I hope that something is going to be done in that case, even if it means a change over of this particular committee. I know of another case which strikes me as particularly bad when one remembers that we are shortly to have a Bill dealing with


penal reform, and are to be asked to make provision in that Bill so that those who have offended once shall be given some method of treatment which will not keep them beyond the pale for all time. This is the case of a woman who made one slip, who was taken advantage of while on holiday. She did not live with the man who was responsible for the child she bore. But she has been deprived of a pension for all time because of that.
It may be that the Government think it right to deprive these people of pensions, but I do not think that Members of this House will think it right that these women should be deprived of pensions and accounted as guilty simply because an accusation is made against them. In all other cases where there has been a lapse the conditions under which it occurred are taken into account. There is one other matter on which I wish to say a sentence or two, and that is in reference to the question of allowances to men under treatment. I know of a case where a man in all probability may have to lose his arm. He has struggled on for years. He paid for one operation himself and did not even claim the treatment allowance to which he was entitled. In that case the Ministry are looking meticulously into his circumstances to see if he has any surplus income and to find out how much treatment allowance can be kept from him. I ask that these men who rendered service to their country which I am sure every Member of this House will admit, should have proper treatment allowance when they go into hospital for treatment. Even though it may appear generous in some cases, that is better than this examination to see how much can be kept from these men. Those are but a few of the points which I should like to put before the House. I ask that these ex-service men and widows should be given the treatment that was promised in 1914, and that the present practices should be abolished.

2.22 p.m.

Mr. Dobbie: I do not intend to submit individual cases, although like previous speakers I know of many, because if a comittee of inquiry is set up, that committee will have the opportunity of considering all these cases. The appeal for a committee of inquiry has been endorsed not only by all hon. Members who have

spoken to-day, but, as one previous speaker remarked, it has been endorsed by every Member to whom he has spoken. Such a committee is demanded by every organisation representing ex-service men. I desire to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the way in which he presented his case for the appointment of a Select Committee. I believe that in nearly every constituency, probably in every constituency in this country, there are numbers of disillusioned and disappointed men. In the country generally there are thousands of these disillusioned and disappointed men, who 20 years ago left their homes and their jobs because of a genuine desire to defend what they thought were great ideals. They listened to platform oratory, they listened to the politicians, and they became convinced that if they risked their health and their lives in this cause and in defence of the country, a grateful people would not forget. We have heard stories here to-day which show that the people of the country and the Government have forgotten.
Those men are now believing that nobody wants to be bothered with them or the difficulties that confront them. Those of us who worked with those men before the War, and who live among them now, sometimes believe that hon. and right hon. Members on the other side of the House, with the best desire to do what they believe to be right, really fail to understand the desperate character of the struggle which those men and their families have to live. We are asking a Government that can find hundreds of millions of pounds for preparations for the next war, and millions of pounds to subsidise industry, to give some attention to these people. I am not blaming the Minister of Pensions, because he has his rules to work to. I am challenging every Member of the House, and saying that we have a responsibility, which we cannot place upon any Minister or the Cabinet or any other body, because it is the sacred responsibility of every Member of this House. I am sorry that there are not many Members who seem to-day to be alive to the promises that were made to those people.
We are just breaking up for Christmas, and all of us will be issuing a Christmas and New Year message. Those forgotten men will see those messages confronting them, and I wonder of what they will be


thinking. Every time I have gone home, I have met men with whom I have worked, and whom I have watched after they have come from the War steadily deteriorating. It may be said to me that age and time bring deterioration to anybody, but the result of wounds, and their sufferings from gas and the other inconveniences these men have received, bring about a deterioration fiercer in character and faster in progress than that to which the average man is subject. These men at this Christmas time will be thinking of the past. They will see again the great crowds of 1914. They will hear the silver voice of the orator in their memories; they will remember the pledges made to them, and the circumstances in which they went away. They will remember coming back wounded, and how they were cheered. They will remember that it was then motor car rides and "fags" for them, but that now it is the public assistance committee and rags. They will remember how they were disappointed and disillusioned.
We want a committee to go into the question of the award that was made. I think the whole award is mean and contemptible in character and amount. We shall be told that if it is wrong now, it was wrong in the beginning. Of course it was wrong in the beginning. The award was never adequate for those men. Who can measure the amount of disability suffered by a wounded man? The only man I know who really measures it is the employer, and, at present, with that great devil's army of the unemployed in the country, what chance has the man with a disability pension to obtain employment if the employer knows anything about his disability? And if the employer does not know about it before the man begins the job, he will soon find it out, and it will not be long, as experience has shown, before the man finds himself again in the ranks of the unemployed. There can be no percentage disability pension for a man who has lost a foot, an arm or a leg. He has lost the whole of his capacity to enter industry on equal terms with the young men who are coming along.
Because of all those things, because of the promises made to these men, because of their disillusionment, because of our responsibility to them, for the good name of the country, I would ask the Minister

—I know he cannot give us the promise that he will do those things, because he has not the power—to join with us in the demand to the Cabinet that an inquiry shall take place for the purpose of reviewing the whole incidence of payments to disabled men. I ask him to take this message to the Cabinet, feeling that if he takes his place with us the Cabinet will be sure to agree.

2.34 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I apologise for intervening at this stage, but I understand that there are one or two other matters of a different character to be raised to-day by hon. Members. I shall, of necessity, be some time dealing with the very interesting Debate to which we have listened. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. F. O. Roberts) and his friends, who have raised the matter of the administration of war pensions, and I share the regret expressed by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) that there are so few Members present to hear the Debate. Occasions on which it has been possible for the Minister of Pensions in the last few years to explain the administration of his Department or to defend himself against criticisms which are made in this House, and, often in a less intelligent fashion, outside, have been few and far between. I think it is eight years since the Ministry's Estimate was called for in this House, and on not one occasion since 1931, while hon. Gentlemen opposite have been in Opposition, has my vote been asked for. It is possible that ill-natured and uncharitably-minded persons will infer from that that hon. Gentlemen opposite have not taken that interest in the subject which they might be expected to. To-day's Debate will go some way, at any rate, to remove that impression.
I have listened to a number of speeches and I have heard, what I expected to hear, that there were allegations of general discontent and dissatisfaction with the administration of the Ministry and with the position of the ex-service man—I would here interpose that the Ministry is responsible solely for the disabled ex-service man. These general allegations are very easy to make and very difficult to disprove. I am somewhat disappointed to-day at not having heard more concrete evidence which would


serve to prove not only the general discontent, but that there was any substantial reason for such general discontent. It is true that the resolution passed at the Conference at Scarborough has been quoted as evidence of general discontent, but I have already given to the House a specimen of the evidence and of the statements of so-called fact which were put forward at that conference. Other statements, equally untrue, were used to procure that resolution, and neither I nor, I think, the House should treat a resolution of that kind as satisfactory evidence of general discontent.
What other evidence have we? A number of complaints presented by hon. Members. This year the number of complaints presented to the Ministry by hon. Members of this House totalled 3,129. There are something like 4,000,000 ex-service men. Therefore, the percentage of complaints to the number of ex-service men bears a proportion of.07—[AN HON. MEMBER: "How many disabled ex-service men?"] There are 450,000 disabled ex-service men, but the Debate to-day has taken in a much wider review than the disabled man only, and, therefore, I think that the hon. Member will agree that I am correct in giving the percentage compared with the total number of ex-service men. The percentage of complaints from hon. Members is.07 of the total number of potential complaints, and, that being the case, it is very difficult for any hon. Member in this House, with his own knowledge of his constituency, to say that there is general discontent. It is a matter individual to himself. He receives, and I receive from my division, complaints that entitlement is not given when the complainant thinks that it should be. We all get them, but I do not think that any hon. Member is entitled, from his necessarily limited experience, to come forward and say that, as a matter of knowledge and of evidence, there is general discontent and dissatisfaction throughout the country.
I will give an instance of the way in which hon. Members may be misled. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker)—I regret that he is not present, but I know that he takes a great interest in this matter—[An HON. MEMBER: "He has been present."] He is not present at the moment. He produced about a year ago, at my invitation, a number of cases with

which he was dissatisfied. In 14 of those cases I advised him in each individual case to request the complainant to present himself at the area office, and, as they were all fresh cases, to state his case and, if necessary, be medically examined. To this day 12 out of those 14 complainants have not yet appeared, and the House will realise the difficulty which that sort of thing causes to the Ministry of Pensions. You receive a complaint, but you do not get the opportunity of saying whether or not the complaint is justified. I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich nods his head. He has had, no doubt, the same experience. In the case of my own constituency, anyway before I was Minister of Pensions, and in the case of the constituencies of hon. Members, of necessity we only hear one side of the case. We have not all the relevant facts.
The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) knows very well of the case which he presented to me a short time ago in which the constituent complained that he had war service between 1916 and 1918, and the hon. Member very naturally put up that case believing in the bona fides of the statement. It so happened, I have no hesitation in saying to this House, that the constituent had forged the certificate. I mention that to show the difficulty we are in unless we know the other side. We have had the question raised just now of the local doctor. It has often been suggested that the word of a local doctor should be final. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) made that suggestion, but another case of two or three days ago occurs to my mind. It was a claim for compensation for rheumatism or arthritis—I forget which—and the local doctor stated on his certificate that the arthritis was of traumatic origin due to service in the War. That means to say that it was due to a wound. But, in point of fact, on examination of the applicant's case he was shown to have never served out of England. The whole of his service he spent in the south of England and he was not wounded at all. I mention that to show the difficulty that would arise if the word of the local doctor were the final word on the subject.

Mr. Stephen: Surely the man might have received a wound in this country. He might have been kicked by one of the mules.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I agree that he might, but the evidence showed that there was no record of any kind, and the presumption I make is that he was not so injured. The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of the war pensions committees, and I mention that now because it is some evidence to rebut any suggestion that there is general discontent and dissatisfaction. In the last few months I have been holding conferences with war pensions committees up and down the country. I have only had the chairman of each committee to deal with at the conference, because the local committees have a membership of something like 25, and if in a big centre I wanted to see the whole of the committees, first of all they probably would not come, and, secondly, it would be difficult to get a room to hold them, so I have dealt chiefly with the chairmen of these committees. I have seen 60 or 70 chairmen of committees, and I believe that there are 100 more to see. I can assure hon. Members that in not one of these interviews with these chairmen have I met any confirmation of the kind of allegations that have been made here this afternoon, and which have been made outside. I have met, broadly speaking, with the general satisfaction of the administration of the pension system, and no desire whatever to have it turned upside down.

Mr. Stephen: Were these Conservative chairmen?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I have no idea what their politics are. They are persons of considerable repute in their own districts, members of local authorities, ex-service men, members of the British Legion and so forth. They are persons of considerable distinction and repute, and there has been no indication given to me at these conferences that there has been anything approaching the dissatisfaction which hon. Members suggest is prevailing. In further confirmation of that I go to the British Legion itself. It is generally agreed that the British Legion is by faraway the body with the largest experience of ex-service men, and its membership is something like 400,000. The only other body of which I can think representing ex-service men has a membership of about 1,200. The British Legion has very highly experienced officials, and is in constant touch with the ex-service men, and is not likely to

give an opinion based upon ignorance or lack of acquaintance with what we are talking about. This is what it says in the last annual report:
First claims to pensions"—
and that is, broadly speaking, what we are most concerned with—
still continue to be submitted and are dealt with by the Ministry of Pensions under the administrative arrangements referred to in previous reports. During the past 12 months, 59 such claims have been successfully handled by the Legion, whilst no case of this nature has, in the council's opinion, been unjustly rejected.
I am bound to treat that evidence as important. It is authoritative. When I put that evidence against evidence which is generally of a vague character. I may be excused for giving preference to a statement of that kind. Only the other day, on 25th November, the chairman of the Pensions and Disablement Committee of the British Legion, speaking, I think, in the West of England, said that after dealing with 24,000 cases since he became chairman of the committee, there was only one case rejected by the Ministry with which he was not in agreement. Is it not remarkable that there should have been this experience of 24,000 cases and that only one was a subject of dispute in the final result? How can I, with evidence of that kind in my mind, say that I am convinced that there is the general discontent which is alleged, or that there is even sufficient to justify an inquiry for the purpose of finding out whether there is need for inquiry? It stands to reason that when statements of that kind are made from people in authority, they demolish the contention that there is either grave discontent or any substantial foundation for it.

Mr. Stephen: Would it be possible for the Minister to get the British Legion to send a circular to their members containing the statements which he has quoted, so that those of us who seem to have got a wrong impression will not be bothered by those members of the British Legion who, from what we have heard, are, in our opinion, being misrepresented by the Legion?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I have great sympathy with what the hon. Member says. Of course, I am not responsible for the procedure of the British Legion, but I


see no reason why I should not make that suggestion to them, because it is an extremely good one. I have said that most of our troubles are concerned with fresh cases and further claims. On that point I would remind the House of the very sound and wise statement that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich when he held the office that I now occupy. This is the statement that he made in the House on 18th November, 1929, when he announced the alteration in the over-seven-years' rule:
At the present date, more than 10 years since the men were demobilised, cases in which disablement by war service can now be justifiably claimed for the first time are, as is admitted on all hands, few in number and will necessarily become fewer. Old war wounds thought to have been healed but giving trouble for the first time since the War, are readily identifiable and are already dealt with both by medical treatment and pension. New claims in respect of some ailment or disease are the more numerous, but comparatively very few cases"—
this in his experience 10 years after the War—
are found on investigation to be genuinely traceable to war service.
That was the considered opinion of the right hon. Gentleman eight years ago, or 10 years after the War. He concluded:
The situation is one that requires to be met by provision for a small and diminishing number of genuine cases only."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1929; col. 24, Vol. 2.32.]
That is an important statement, and, as far as I know, an accurate forecast of what the right hon. Gentleman expected would happen during the administration for which he was responsible. Let us see what has happened. I have here the applications under the over-seven-years' rule and the percentage of successes on entitlement. Looking at the figures for 1930, the complete year for which the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his party were responsible, there were 19,024 new claims. That was to be expected after the alteration in the over-seven-years' rule. It was natural that the alteration should bring in at once a flood of new claims. Of those claims, a total of 1,915, or 10.1 per cent., were recognised by the right hon. Gentleman. That is one in 10. I mention this fact because suggestions have been made that I am less sympathetic and more harsh than has been the case in the past.

Mr. F. O. Roberts: Who said that?

Mr. E. Smith: It is not the Minister but the policy that is to blame.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am glad to have that statement. So far as policy is concerned, it will be seen that, from the point of view of the applicants, a more generous result has arisen in the years for which I have been responsible. Whereas only one in ten claims was successful in 1930, when there were 19,000 applications, and therefore a large field within which to exercise sympathy or laxity, in the years 1936–37 the percentage of successes averaged 17.4. In other words, one in six has been successful. That is the largest percentage of successes since the rule was altered in 1929. I can, therefore, claim that during the years for which I have been responsible there has been a larger percentage of successes than in 1930. I hope these figures will be widely known and that currency will be given to them in the country.
The hon. Member for Camlachie raised the question of medical examinations. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was himself responsible for a very beneficial and useful reform in that respect. This year the number of cases referred to independent medical experts is treble the number referred three years ago. I am making much more use of that power than apparently my predecessors did. When the hon. Member for Camlachie said that the independent medical expert should always see the man, I can tell him that he can always see the man if he so wishes. I cannot, of course, compel a specialist to visit a man, nor can I have the man sent to him compulsorily, but there is this point to bear in mind that as a rule, the diagnosis, is not in dispute. The point at issue is the causation of the disability. When there is a conflict between the medical advisers at the Ministry and the local doctor, the independent medical expert gives his opinion as to the cause of the disability. The right hon. Member said that there had been exceptional treatment and consideration for certain cases, but he did not counsel an alteration of the Warrant, although in the same breath he apparently wanted a new Warrant or an addition to the Warrant. I imagine that a new Warrant or an addition to the Warrant would considerably modify the present enactments. What does the hon. Gentleman want done? Does he want us to disregard the medical evidence?

Mr. F. O. Roberts: No.

Mr. Ramsbotham: At any rate he said that we should be more elastic, more lax. That means that, somehow or other, we have to indicate to the members of the medical profession, whose duty it is to furnish me with a certificate before I can come to a decision, that they shall not, as they do at present, honestly and conscientiously tell me whether or not in their opinion the particular disability has its origin in war service, but that they should do something else—that they should be elastic and lax, and tell me something which they do not themselves fully believe.

Mr. Silverman: The kind of case we have in mind is where the facts are not in dispute; where a man joins the Army, is passed as fully fit for general service and was at the end of the War granted a pension, and where in 1927 or 1928 his final disability is assessed at 70 per cent. The cause of the disability is a form of heart disease admitted by the Minister to be aggravated by war service. Within two years of that date the man dies of heart disease. His widow gets no pension at all, because the Minister has to say that he is advised by the medical experts that, although he had heart disease, and although it was a 70 per cent. disability and that a man with heart disease might die at any time, the fact that he lived for a couple of years shows that the degree of aggravation caused by war service had long since disappeared, and that his death was due to heart disease not aggravated by war service. It is that kind of case we have in mind.

Mr. Ramsbotham: The hon. Member must realise that under the Warrant he and I are dependent on medical opinion and advice. I will go into the case he mentions with him, and do all I can to satisfy him that there has been no injustice done.

Mr. Silverman: The Minister has had particulars of the case since June of this year, but so far no explanation has been given.

Mr. Ramsbotham: If the hon. Member will remind me I will look into it again. In these cases I am bound by statute not to grant a pension without a certificate from my medical advisers, and unless we are going to put the whole of our

pension system into the melting pot and imitate what has been done in other parts of the world, we cannot remodel our pension system or issue new warrants or fresh warrants and at the same time keep, as I think we must, the causation between war service and present disability absolutely intact.

Mr. K. Griffith: How would the Minister regard it if the form of medical certificate were to say that the present condition is consistent with having been caused by war service, but is also consistent with other causes?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I fully appreciate the point. The hon. Member asks me where does possibility end and probability begin. That is one of our great difficulties. We come across it in the phrase "benefit of the doubt." I have never heard this phrase better defined than in a publication relating to returned soldiers and sailors of Australia in which it is said:
Considerable argument has always centred around the meaning of the words 'benefit of the doubt.' In practice it may be said that a 'doubt' must be something more than a mere possibility. It must be something which swings the balance of probabilities in favour of an appellant before he can succeed.
That is as good a definition as I know of the "benefit of the doubt." There must be a probability, not a mere possibility and if we required a legal certainty it would mean that two-thirds of the present pensions would vanish.

Mr. Silverman: Surely that is not the benefit of the doubt. It says where there is a reasonable inference, not amounting to positive proof, the inference would be accepted in place of proof. That is not the same thing as saying that where there is a reasonable doubt, the benefit of the doubt will be given to the man.

Mr. Ramsbotham: Quite clearly where the balance of probability is against the man, the benefit of the doubt is not with the man. If the probability of the doubt is in his favour, then the definition clearly sets out the kind of consideration which must tell in the man's favour.

Mr. E. Smith: I have in my hand a certificate sent to me by the Officers' Benevolent Department of the British Legion. These are certificates from world renowned specialists and they refer to:


the unsatisfactory attitude of the medical advisers on the Ministry towards the opinions of doctors who are in constant attendance on patients for war disabilities and who give certificates in support of claims and even the opinions of specialists who are called upon to examine those patients.
Il is that aspect of the question which is causing so much dissatisfaction.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I should like to see that quotation, and perhaps the hon. Member will let me have it. The right hon. Gentleman raised other interesting points, but perhaps he will forgive me if I do not deal with the individual cases he mentioned. I was rather surprised to hear his criticism of the artificial limb centre at Roehampton.

Mr. F. O. Roberts: I did not criticise, but I endeavoured to state what I hoped was a question of fact. I think I have praised as highly as I can the limb-fitting centres, and I said that I was rather surprised to get that quotation.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am sorry if I misinterpreted the right hon. Gentleman, but I will certainly look into the cases which he brought to my notice in his speech. I think it is not too much to say that the centre at Roehampton is probably the finest in the world. At the present time hospitals, insurance societies, miners' welfare committees and other bodies requiring artificial limbs for their associates make use of the Roehampton centre. Although there may be a dispute as to whether a mistake was made in individual cases, I think that generally speaking the House may rest satisfied that everything possible is being done in the way of providing artificial limbs for those who require them.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of partially disabled men, and he and other hon. Members dealt with the position regarding the employment of those men. That is a matter which has been causing me very great concern. There is no doubt that as the years go by it becomes increasingly difficult for men of the age of these pensioners, particularly disabled men, to get work. Hon. Members know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is experiencing difficulty in connection with the 50 to 55 age group, which is the average age of our pensioners. They are having the same, if not greater, difficulty in getting and preserving employment as civilians of the same age.
Nevertheless, the position is not as gloomy as might be expected. For instance, the Ministry of Labour returns for last October show that there were on the register 28,000 of these partially disabled men temporarily unemployed. That represents 7.4 per cent. as compared with 11.2 per cent. of the general population. Still, I am much relieved to find that the percentage of unemployment among what may be called my clients is lower than it is among the general body of non-disabled persons. I can assure the House that everything possible is being done to prevent that rate from becoming higher and to reduce it, if it can be reduced. I have been in constant touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, and I have put forward this scheme and that scheme for consideration. I have received assistance, as the House knows, from the King's Roll.
Some time ago the House made arrangements by which unemployed disabled ex-service men, in order to qualify for benefit, must have only 10 contributions in place of 30, and by a special arrangement they are kept in medical benefit free; and I give the House an assurance that I am watching the problem of employment most assiduously, and shall continue to do so. The passing of the years is bound to make the problem more difficult, but I am doing all that I can in the matter. The men are carefully classified at the exchanges, and before they come out of hospital, after receiving treatment, the exchanges are notified in advance, so that the men are not kept hanging about and are given the first jobs that the exchanges have to offer. I hope to take steps to make arrangements by which the local authorities can give more employment to these men in light jobs. In this matter hon. Members can help by doing all that they can in their constituencies for these men who find it difficult to get jobs.
I come now to the question of prematurely-aged ex-service men. As I understand it, the object of the British Legion inquiry is to find out whether there is a case which substantiates what is said in private conversation, that a large number of men have suffered premature ageing owing to War services. The right hon. Gentleman quoted some figures with regard to the percentage of deaths among pensioners.

Mr. F. O. Roberts: Not in that connection.

Mr. Ramsbotham: No, but may I take this opportunity of saying that those figures were not quite accurate. The actual rate of deaths among pensioners during the period in question was 15.5 compared with 10.5 among the civilian population. In other words, it is 45 per cent. above the figure for the civilian population of the same age, and I do not see how that can be avoided, because the pensioned man is ex hypothesi a damaged life and has been compensated for that. But it is rather encouraging to note that, whereas the percentage in this country is only 45 per cent. above the civilian population, in the United States it is 71 per cent. above the civilian population, and in South Africa 77 per cent. I attribute that difference very largely to the wonderful network of social and health services which exists in this country and which is not to be found anywhere else.
I come back to the right hon. Gentleman's point about the prematurely aged ex-service man. It is extremely difficult to pronounce an opinion upon the effect of war service in relation to premature age. There is, in the ordinary sense, no evidence and there cannot be any evidence, to show that premature aging is caused by war service. There are other hon. Members who, like myself, served in the War and who, fortunately, escaped unscathed. We do not know whether we are prematurely aged or not. We hope we are not, but we shall only know when it is too late. It is a subject on which, in my judgment, it is almost impossible to pronounce an opinion. I know that the British Legion have instituted an inquiry and I understand from the "British Legion Journal" that it was found necessary to extend the limits of that inquiry in order to embrace all ex-service men suffering from any disability however caused—whether by war service or otherwise. I have an open mind on the question. I do not know enough about it to be able to tell the House that there is no such thing as premature age brought about by war service, but it is a difficult thing to prove, and I would like to remind the House of what has been said about this matter in the United States where certain investigations have been carried out. An

article in "The American Legion" of December, 1936, stated:
Superficially regarded, the World War veterans are not greatly different from the rest of the American population, and might seem a reasonably typical cross-section of the men—and to a lesser extent because fewer of them were in the service, of the women—who were the youth of the Nation in 1917 and 1918. Closer consideration indicates, however, that as a whole they have definite points of superiority—physically because they had to pass rather stiff examinations before they got their uniforms; and mentally, because the poorer intellects were strained out in the same manner. Both physically and mentally most of them received benefits from experiencing months or years of the rigorous discipline of military life. It is true that some bodies and minds suffered impairments which would have been avoided had there been no war. But the net balance is on the other side.
As we all know, pensions treatment in the United States does not err on the side of meanness.

Mr. Attlee: It will, of course, be realised that America was at war only for a comparatively short time, and that only a comparatively small section of the population there is affected. It is very different when you come to the case of a nation which was conscripted and was at war for four years.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I, of course, realise that fact and I am only submitting that statement to the House as far as it goes. But let us turn to Canada—for Canada was at war from the outset. The report of the Department of Pensions and National Health of Canada dated 31st March, 1936, contains the following:
During the past few years many of the allies have noted through their pensions and insurance divisions, that the general health of the surviving members of their Expeditionary Forces is found to be better than that of a corresponding group of civilians, and that the fears which were abroad immediately after the War have not been substantiated, namely, that in general the returned soldier had shorter expectancy of life than a corresponding civilian.
That is the opinion of the Pensions Department of the Government of the Dominion of Canada. I am not prejudging the issue—I do not know—but all I say is that the statement that there is any general premature ageing consequent on war experience which otherwise left the soldier undamaged should be taken, I think, with a very great deal of caution. It is a very long way indeed from being proved, and such investigations as have been made rather tend to a contrary


opinion. I think that deals, broadly speaking, with all the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) was rather pessimistic. Perhaps he has been rather unfortunate in his experience in regard to cases that he has brought before the Ministry and has had a lot of bad luck, which I hope will not last, but I think he was a little unfair, or unjust, or hypercritical when he said that he thinks every excuse is taken to refuse a pension to a widow. I assure the House that a phrase of that kind does far from justice—indeed, does no justice at all—to those whose duty it is to examine these cases. If there is a medical opinion that death was due to or materially hastened by the War, there is no question of any excuse.

Mr. Griffith: I withdraw that remark. I have been unfortunate in my experience.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I hope the hon. Member will be more fortunate in future, and I can assure him that all his cases get: my own personal attention. Now I come to the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner). If ever this Debate was justified, it was justified for the benefit of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds, because I have seldom heard a speech containing such a travesty of the facts and betraying such a very small acquaintance with the subject of which he was talking. He was attacking the Special Grants Committee, and in connection with that matter I should be interested to know how much experience he has had.

Major Milner: I gave up the job before the hon. Member took his office.

Mr. Ramsbotham: Then perhaps the hon. and gallant Member's recollection is not quite as clear as it otherwise might have been. What does he mean by saying that a widow has no opportunity of presenting her case, which I understand is the point of his disagreement with the procedure? Let me tell him what happens. If there is reason to suppose that this is a case which requires investigation, the War Pensions Committee acquaints the widow in question with that fact and with the evidence against her; they tell her of the charge

made against her, and they ask her for her rebuttal in writing or orally before the committee itself, and I may say that in two-thirds of the cases in which a lady has been invited to appear orally before the committee, she has not appeared.

Major Milner: Do I understand the hon. Member to say that the Ministry notify widows that they have the right to appear and give oral evidence before the Special Grants Committee?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The hon. and gallant Member quite misunderstood what I said. I said that it is the local war pensions committee, which is charged with the duty—It is all very well for the hon. and gallant Member to wave his hand like that. It is a very grave charge against the war pensions committee.

Major Milner: I never mentioned the war pensions committee. I mentioned the Special Grants Committee. I never mentioned the war pensions committee except as a mere channel of communication, it may be.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. and gallant Member. It is common knowledge, I should have thought, that these cases are heard in the first instance by local war pensions committees.

Mr. Silverman: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the local pensions committees hear the evidence on both sides?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Certainly; the local pensions committee is charged with the duty of investigating and reporting on the cases. The committee is composed of the most reputable people. I gather that the charges are meant for the Special Grants Committee, and that charges against the local pensions committees do not exist, except in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's own mind.

Major Milner: The Minister has no right to say that.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am sorry if I misrepresented the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The local pensions committee hears the case of the woman in question, who knows that she can give evidence orally before the committee. In the majority of cases rebuttal is confined to writing. When the phrase "accuser and accused" is used, it shows a complete misunderstanding of the whole


position. The war pensions committee is not in the position of accuser and the woman is not in the position of an accused. There is a suspicion and a case for investigation, and it is the business of the committee to find out the facts and to report to the Special Grants Committee. The Special Grants Committee, as far as I am concerned, is a factfinding committee, and if it finds as a fact that unworthy conduct has been committed, suspension or forfeiture automatically takes place. That has been the position even since 1915. I gave the hon. and gallant Member details of the numbers of various cases. They were nearly double the number when his party held office, and, as far as I know, he never raised any point then or charged the Special Grants Committee with being prejudiced and biased, or said there was no confidence in its independence. One of his own colleagues will not be very pleased to hear that. One of the members is the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins), and the hon. and gallant Member ought to be more careful—

Major Milner: I understand that the hon. Member for Pontypool has not been able to attend the committee. He is not, therefore, to be held responsible. The fact that only four out of 14 attend on the average is a commentary on the Special Grants Committee.

Mr. Silverman: At what stage of the inquiry, if at any stage, is the woman against whom a charge is made given the opportunity of knowing what is the evidence against her and of meeting that evidence, and before what tribunal does that take place?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The tribunal is the war pensions committee, which is composed of a number of her fellow-citizens. I agree that it is not a legal tribunal—

Mr. Silverman: I am asking at what stage of the proceedings, if at any stage, is the accused woman told what is the evidence against her and given the opportunity of replying to it. As far as my limited experience goes, it takes place at no stage. If it takes place at any stage, the House will be greatly relieved to know.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I do not think the hon. Member is quite correct, because

when the suspicion is first aroused the war pensions committee regard it as their duty to approach the woman in question and acquaint her with the suspicion.

Mr. Silverman: With the charge, but not with the evidence.

Mr. Ramsbotham: She is told what the charge is, and she is told that she can make a written reply, or an oral reply, or both, and that if she chooses to do so she can rebut what is said against her. I agree that she is not confronted with witnesses, so that she cannot cross-examine any witnesses.

Mr. Silverman: Or know who they are. Is there any other court which would be content with that procedure?

Mr. Ramsbotham: It is only in a minority of cases that an anonymous letter is concerned. In the case of an anonymous letter the difficulty would be to confront the lady with the writer.

Mr. Silverman: Who ever heard of an anonymous witness?

Mr. Ramsbotham: This procedure may have certain imperfections, but it has continued now through the time of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and through the time of other Ministers. What the hon. Gentleman is asking me to do is to sustitute for this the full-dress procedure of a court of law, with evidence on oath and solicitors and counsel.

Mr. Silverman: Why not?

Mr. Ramsbotham: If the hon. Member made that suggestion in his own constituency I am certain that he would be turned down by his constitutents.

Mr. Silverman: Why?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Because of the publicity which would be given.

Mr. Silverman: Is the hon. Member in favour of applying that to any other criminal case?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Perhaps the hon. Member will let me get on with other points. It is quite an error to suppose that on the occasion of a first mistake action against the woman is taken with full rigour. It is hardly ever that that is clone. On the first mistake a warning is given; at the very worst the action taken is the holding of the pension in trust.
I think I have covered most of the points which other hon. Members have raised. The hon. Member for Holland-with-Boston (Mr. Butcher), has put the position rightly in saying that with the lapse of time there is increasing difficulty in establishing the connection between the disability and the war service. The great bulk of the cases nowadays are claims based upon ailments and not upon wounds. The cases which mostly come up for consideration are asthma, bronchitis, heart, and rheumatism cases. Those complaints are, as it so happens, the complaints which are most prevalent in civil occupations, according to the Ministry of Health. There is, in fact, an almost precise correlation between the incidence of those diseases among ex-service men and among civilians. It goes to show that advancing years bring on such diseases in civil life, and that makes my task in disentangling the war causes from civilian causes very much more difficult than it would otherwise be.
I mention that to impress upon hon. Members who bring me these cases that it is not any desire for economy, or any lack of sympathy, that leads to an unfavourable decision. It is due to the fact that it is my business, as being in charge of public money, to be satisfied that I am awarding pensions for disablements incurred by applicants in the War. If I go beyond that, if I am lax, if I do not ask for a reasonable degree of evidence to satisfy me, if I am content with bare possibilities rather than probabilities, I am to that extent betraying the trust which my office imposes upon me, and neither the right hon. Gentleman opposite nor myself would ever consent to engage in practices of that kind. We have to be guided by medical evidence, we cannot be guided by rough and ready evidence of a lower degree. In administering this system with as much sympathy and as humanely as possible, we have to have certain rules which we administer, otherwise there would be chaos. I suggest to hon. Members that it is our duty as far as we can to maintain the continuity of our system. As a rule we do not bring pensions into the vortex of party politics. The right hon. Gentleman has on previous occasions made appeals that the subject should not be treated from the party point of view, and I have always entirely agreed with him. There should be a continuity, and I believe it is because there

has been continuity in policy that our pension system is the most regular and gives far more security compared with any other pension system in the world.
There is one further point. Hon. Members have pressed for an inquiry. I think it would be futile to institute an inquiry for the purpose of finding out whether there was need for inquiry. I have already given what I think is sufficient evidence to show that need for inquiry does not exist at present. As hon. Members know, the British Legion instituted an inquiry about a year ago into the subject of the prematurely aged ex-service man, and it has now been extended to ex-service men suffering from any disability, whether of War origin or not. The Scottish Legion sent out a questionnaire to a large number of its members. I think about 13,000 went out, and the Legion received about 2,000 back, of which, after the winnowing of the applications, some 300 were considered worthy of further consideration. The point is that, shortly after the questionnaire was sent out, the Secretary of the Legion received letters from various parts of the country making inquiries about the granting of a Coronation pension. By means of the Press and of the Legion organ, the Secretary had to take steps to make it clear to all the recipients of the questionnaire that the inquiry was solely for the purpose of obtaining information and was in no sense an indication or a promise of a pension, or that a Coronation pension was to be awarded as soon as the questionnaire was signed.
That experience shows the danger of holding out hopes by the setting up of an inquiry and of raising the same expectations, with precisely the same result as has happened in the case of the Scottish Legion. Expectations were raised by the sending out of the questionnaire; how much more would expectations be raised if the Government, before they were in any way satisfied that any evidence existed to justify inquiry, themselves instituted an inquiry? I believe that the final result would be to cause a good deal of hardship, disappointment and unhappiness among those who had learned of the Government's proposal. For that reason, at this stage at any rate, I see no reason whatever to accede to such a request for inquiry. I have already said that I have an open mind on many of the points, and


I shall await the report of the British Legion and give it my fullest consideration.

Mr. MacLaren: It was complained that there was some difficulty, when a case was being reheard, about the sending of the evidence of local medical advisers; how far would the evidence of local practictioners be available, or does such evidence not carry any weight at all?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I see all the evidence, including that of the local medical practitioner, and certainly due weight is given to the information given by the local medical practitioner, who has the whole case before him.

ANTI-BRITISH PROPAGANDA.

3.35 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I desire to direct the attention of the House to the question of Italian anti-British propaganda, but I should like first to say one or two sentences about a closely allied subject, that of British news services abroad. These services are most unfairly handicapped to the national detriment by the subsidised foreign news services with which they have to compete; in fact, I understand that one country actually pays certain newspapers to take its services. I raised this question on the Adjournment for the autumn Recess, and, in consequence, I received a very large number of letters and cables from many parts of the British Dominions and Colonies, fully bearing out all that I said on that occasion. As a result of the publicity which was then given to the matter, I understand that an official of the B.B.C. has visited South America and certain other countries, and there are one or two questions in that connection that I would like to put to the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who has been kind enough to come here to reply. Has that official returned from his visit? While he was away, did he visit the Mediterranean? Has he reported? Will his report be made public; and do the Government intend to act upon his report?
I am aware, of course, that something is being done in this connection by the British Broadcasting Corporation. We had an announcement to that effect the other day in the House. But I gathered that what it is proposed to do is on rather

a small scale. I recollect that the Postmaster-General said that some adjustment of the income of the British Broadcasting Corporation would be made to enable it to meet the cost, which implies that no new funds will be available. I feel that the Government are approaching the matter in rather a small way because, if anything effective is to be done, very large sums indeed will be required. In fact, this propaganda has now reached such a pitch that I am not sure whether it is entirely a matter for the Foreign Office, the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Postmaster-General all peddling round with the income of the British Broadcasting Corporation. I am not sure that it is not more a matter for the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. I am certain that the Government must act on a large scale, and must contemplate large expense.
There is one point to which I would like to invite the Noble Lord's attention. Among the correspondence to which I have referred, I received a letter from the editor of one of the Vancouver papers. He informed me that he had written to the Foreign Office on 1st July about this subject and he sent me a copy of his letter, which seemed to me a serious letter and to raise very many valuable points. His letter to me was dated 12th September and in it he said:
I have not even had the courtesy of an acknowledgment from the Foreign Office.
I think that that is to some extent unsatisfactory. A letter can be acknowledged, even if it cannot be fully answered at the time. An episode of that sort creates a very bad impression on the mind of the editor of a Dominion paper trying to do his best in this matter. I do not wish to pillory the official to whom the letter was addressed by giving his name but I have the correspondence here, and it is, of course, at the disposal of the Noble Lord.
I turn now to the more immediate question of Italian anti-British propaganda. I have been calling attention to it in this House for over a year. I had hoped to raise the matter on the adjournment for the Autumn Recess, but I understood at that time that certain overtures were in progress, and that there was an exchange of correspondence taking place between our Prime Minister and the head of the Italian Government, and I, therefore, deferred raising the question in order that


nothing might be said which might possibly prejudice that correspondence. I gather, however, from the tone of recent replies in this House, and especially from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) on Tuesday—the right hon. Member for Epping generally knows which way the wind is blowing from the Government—that the brake is now off so far as the head of the Italian Government is concerned. We have to complain not only of Italian wireless propaganda but of Italian Press propaganda. I feel that Italy, or perhaps I should say the head of the Italian Government, has now become the poison pen of Europe, and that pen poisons the whole of the world's international relations.
Other countries have an equal right with ourselves to complain in this matter. I noticed recently a most bitter and untruthful attack on the United States of America in reference to supplying arms to Spain. Our relations With Portugal have recently improved. The Italian Government is not altogether happy to see that improvement, and consequently we had a completely mendacious story about Portuguese colonies. To use the Press in that way amounts, in my opinion, to blackmail, and in the opinion of all decent people blackmail is the most odious of crimes. No head of a State or government actuated by ordinary motives of honour or decency would tolerate or allow such a thing. But it is the head of the Italian Government himself who writes some of these lies in the Press, although he is bound by agreement not to do so. I long, in company with every other Member of this House, to see friendly relations established between the Italian and British peoples, but it is utterly impossible for that to come about as long as this propaganda continues.
Representations have been made, amendment has been promised and the promise has been broken. In July of this year the head of the Italian Government sent a personal message to our Foreign Secretary that the Italian Government had taken all the steps in their power to avoid any aggravation of the situation in Palestine from Italy. This message was described as "an unusual and significant course." That is to say, this message was invested with great ceremony and formality. It was delivered to our Foreign Secretary by the Italian

Ambassador. I ask, has that undertaking been kept? On the contrary, my information is that since then the Bari broadcasts have increased in violence. If it is the case that an undertaking sent by the head of a foreign State to the British Foreign Secretary, and delivered by his Ambassador, is not going to be observed, then it is a case of flagrant dishonour, it is a slur on the good name of Italy. I wonder how it feels to be an Italian Ambassador. Ambassadors are appointed by one King to another. They are inter-regal Mercurys. Their persons are sacred and they are treated with great respect and great honour. I wonder what it feels like to be an Ambassador and to bear messages of that sort with undertakings which are not kept. To use your power over the Press to vilify an opponent who cannot reply is the worst infirmity of an ignoble mind. I will quote, if I may, from an article in the "Times" of recent date which says:
With the exception of the organ of the Vatican, there is not a single newspaper in Italy which does not publish from day to day, insinuations and sneers aimed at Great Britain. This does not in the least represent the feelings of the average Italian, but is apparently felt necessary by the powers that be to justify Italy's foreign policy.
The Italian Press is controlled by the Italian Government. The newspapers not only are controlled, but they receive the most precise instructions from the Italian Government as to what is to be published. If the House will allow me, I will give a few instances of these instructions to Italian journalists:
Begin and continue a strong campaign against Czechoslovakia.
Here is another:
Insist on the eventuality of Eden's leaving the Foreign Office. Have sent from London news of Eden's dismissal.
Here is another:
Reproduce and amplify the news of the Stefani agency about how desirable it would be to burn the contagious quarters of London—unworthy of a civilised age. Add that Edward, if he had continued to reign, would have provided for it.
The last I will quote is this:
Stress any unfortunate incident that may happen during the Coronation celebrations.
It will not surprise the House to hear, after that, that an Italian paper, on the occasion of the recent disgraceful attempt on the life of the Portuguese President, published a report that the attempt had


been arranged by the British Secret Service.
These are deliberate attempts on the part of the Italian Government to stir up mischief with countries with which, by agreement, they are supposed to be in friendly relations. There is a point up to which such propaganda can be treated with contempt, but that point, in the opinion of competent observers, has long been passed. The Bari wireless station under orders from Mussolini foments discontent and persistently stokes up agitation in Palestine, and represents to the Moslems that they are suffering intolerable wrongs from which the Italian Government is prepared to rescue them. It is notorious that Italian money has subsidised discontent in Palestine, and the Italian Government has a direct share of responsibility for the loss of life, damage to property and assassinations of British officials which have taken place in Palestine. The "Times" published this from its Palestine correspondent:
The Italians habitually publish exaggerated tendentious and often wilfully false news concerning Palestine. They have a certain effect on young men and the ignorant populace. The educated leaders make full use of Italian propaganda to impress English opinion with the importance of consulting the Arab world.
Dr. Weizmann has said that the trouble in Palestine has its root in the international situation, and has spoken about venomous propaganda there. During the sanctions crisis, practically every Syrian paper was receiving Italian money, and the President of the Syrian Palestine Defence Committee is known to be in touch with Italian consular authorities. I will give, if the House will allow me again, some examples of the Italian lying campaign about Palestine. There are extracts which speak of Britain "carrying on a ruthless policy of terrorism," "dynamiters," "Harem's searched, women outraged," "spreading destruction and devastation in the Holy Land," "brutal British repression," "Neo-Herodian horrors." I call atention to that latter phrase, because it appeared in the "Popola d'Italia," which is Mussolini's own paper. It was in an unsigned article and contains the passage:
The news from Palestine cannot but awaken a profound sense of horror in all the civilised world. The precepts which for thousands of years have assured justice and

civilisation to humanity are openly violated. No one has been entrusted with a mandate to spread destruction and devastation in the Holy Land.
That comes very ill from the Italian Government when we bear in mind that recent massacre at Addis Ababa this year, which shocked the whole of the civilised world, the murder of such a gallant opponent as Ras Desta, and when we also recall that five days orgy of murder which marked the Italian occupation of Tripoli in 1911, and earned for Marshal Graziani, the present Viceroy of Abyssinia, his present nickname of the "Hyena of Libya." "Evil communications corrupt good manners." This Italian Press propaganda has been followed up and magnified in the German Press, coupled with most bitter attacks upon the Foreign Secretary, and it is an intolerable interference with the affairs of a country engaged in a task of very great difficulty in Palestine. Libellous and abusive radio talks, holding us up to the scorn and hatred of Moslems, are directly inspired and subsidised by the Italian Government, and they are given in 16 languages. They are all part of a plan for substituting Italian influence for British influence in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East because Mussolini has not assumed the role of protector of Arab rights without a plan. He wishes to fish in the troubled waters in the Eastern Mediterranean, just as he is fishing in the troubled waters of the Western Mediterranean. It is no good under-rating his ambitions or his nuisance value.
The centre of gravity in the Mediterranean and of the route to the Far East is now to be found in Palestine, in Haifa and Akabah, and this Italian propaganda must be read in that context. Mr. Roke, of Beirut, a member of the Higher Arab Committee, when expressing the opinion of the Committee and of the Grand Mufti, said:
We know that Italy regards the Arab question as only a card in a bigger game.
May I indicate some of the methods by which this propaganda is carried on? Italian agents practically give away radio sets to cafes where Arabs sit, and every night broadcasts are picked up from Morocco right down from the Persian Gulf. There are programmes for Malta, Egypt and French Africa. Since 1st December talks in Arabic are given daily instead of bi-weekly. The propaganda is


increasing in violence. I spoke of the programme for Malta. Here is a recent sample from it:
The Empire of the English is decadent. The British Fleet is a museum piece. Mr. Eden is a clown in the hands of the masons.
I hope that they have not also discovered that he is a member of a very sinister secret society called the Oddfellows. We may smile, but I am afraid that turning the other cheek or laughing in our sleeves is not understood in the Mediterranean. Englishmen and English journalists abroad, who are better advised judges than we are in this matter, are unanimous that we can no longer afford to ignore what is going on. Here is another example. The Aga Khan was quoted as saying in an interview:
If the Duce's promises regarding Islam should be realised, the Arabs of the world would place all their hopes in the Italian Government.
The Aga Khan was asked about this, and he replied that, instead, he had said:
We in India are happy and prosperous under our King and Emperor.
Could anything be more wicked or more malevolent than to distort the words of the Aga Khan, remembering the part that he plays in the affairs of the Moslem world? Radio is not the only method of propaganda which includes large expenditure on schools and hospitals as centres of Italianisation in Syria and Palestine. They include cheap holidays in Italy. Students are given three or four weeks holiday in Italy for two to three pounds. During that time they are shown the grandeur of Italian civilisation, while they are told about the decadence of Great Britain. Hundreds of them go on these joy rides every year and they return to their own countries as enthusiastic Italian propagandists.
Ninety per cent. of the news reels in cinemas in the Near East show Italian films, glorifying Italian military strength, and the might of the Italian Navy, with plenty of close-ups of Mussolini, registering resolution and posing as the real he-man. The British films, on the contrary, very largely consist of such episodes as "Women's lacrosse at Weston-super-Mare," or, "Glasgow's Lord Provost opens Poor Law institution." These British films cut a very poor figure alongside the Italian news reels. Then there is the Pilgrimage to Mecca. Two thousand Mohammedans

from Abyssinia were sent on the Pilgrimage to Mecca, and the Italian Government paid every penny of the expenses. Pilgrims were similarly sent from Eritrea, Somaliland, Libya and Tripoli and they all returned to tell the story of how Mussolini had made it possible.
It would be idle to deny that all these clever and unscrupulous methods are having their effect. It is no use our being supine and relying on past glories to pull us through while Italy tirelessly tells the tale that we are on the run and that the British Empire will soon break up. I know personally that money has been spent in Egypt in the corruption of politicians. Now Italian agents and money are invading Arabia. Italian propaganda is busy in Saudi Arabia. Ibn Saud is being incited by Italian agents to attack the Yemen while at the same time it is stated that Italy has signed contracts to supply arms to Yemen, on condition that Italian military and civil advisers are accepted there. I should like to know whether any reports have been received from our Minister at Jedda as to that? Have any Italian agents been arrested at Aden? If these stories are true, they have to be considered in connection with the statement of the Foreign Secretary in this House recently that we would tolerate no rival Power on the Eastern shores of the Red Sea. Chiefs of important tribes in Libya have been incited to send telegrams to Mussolini, announcing "solidarity with the oppressed Arabs in Palestine." Similar messages have come from certain chiefs in Abyssinia. It should be the duty of the head of the Italian Government in accordance with the Anglo-Italian Agreement to rebuke these chiefs and say that he has no concern whatever with the affairs of Palestine. That is the reply that he ought to send, but, on the contrary, he encourages such messages.
This year we concluded an agreement with Italy, which has ironically been called a gentlemen's agreement. I have heard a gentleman's agreement defined as one in which a man who is a gentleman agrees to call the other party a gentleman, although he knows that he is not one. This agreement contains a clause binding the two parties "to promote friendly relations between the two parties." The Italian propaganda of which I complain is a flagrant breach of that clause of the agreement. No reply is possible in the


Italian Press. The Press in Italy is controlled by the Ministry of Propaganda. The Ministry of Propaganda is controlled by the Italian Foreign Office. The Italian Foreign Office is controlled by Count Ciano, and Count Ciano is controlled by his father-in-law, Mussolini. Therefore, any notes to Ciano promptly go into the waste-paper basket.
I believe that some action is necessary. The Foreign Secretary in my opinion has been too prone to believe that a denial given in this House is a sufficient reply. But such denials are never read by the same people who have read or heard the original lie. The question arises, what to do? Let me say at once that I shrink from any idea of crude retaliation. We do not want radio war in the air conducted with mendacity bombs, but perhaps one line of action is to increase the supply of what I will call straight British news, and I believe also that straight contradictions of the more flagrant of these statements would be advisable. If these methods and further representations fail, then I can only say that I consider that this propaganda is most definitely what is called in international relations an unfriendly act, and the question arises whether we ought not—I do not say to sever diplomatic relations—to invite our Ambassador to go on leave and remain absent indefinitely from his post at the seat of a Government which indulges in such unfriendly acts.

4.3 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Cranborne): I should like to thank the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) for enabling the Foreign Office to enjoy the traditional privilege of winding up the Parliamentary Session, but while I agree that the subject is of the utmost importance, his speech was limited and, as I understand that there are other hon. Members who wish to raise other matters, I hope the House will acquit me of any discourtesy if I reply to the hon. and gallant Member immediately. He has raised two aspects of the same subject. Of one he kindly gave me notice, of the other he did not, that is, of the British news services. It is a question of a technical character but I can assure him that the Government are giving it the most constant and serious

consideration. In the past, as we all know, we have never gone in for such a news service or propaganda. We thought that we were our own best propagandists. We thought, and I think righdy, that England was the happiest and freest country in the world and that that must be obvious to everybody. But in view of the facts which the hon. and gallant Member has put before us and in view of the present circumstances, it is obvious that past practice is not entirely adequate.
The hon. and gallant Member raised one special point with regard to the British news services. He asked about the visit of an official of the British Broadcasting Corporation abroad, whether he had returned, whether he went to the Mediterranean, whether he had made a report, whether that report was to be published, and what action would be taken. It is impossible for me to answer all these questions, but I can tell the hon. and gallant Member that this official went to South America to study particular aspects of broadcasting in Spanish and Portuguese. He has come back and his report has been received and is under consideration. It is confidential, and we do not propose to publish it. The hon. and gallant Member also raised a point about a letter written by the editor of a Vancouver journal. I cannot answer that this afternoon but, if he will send me the letter, I will see that it is brought at once to the notice of the competent department of the Foreign Office. The general question of British news services is at the present moment under examination by a special committee appointed by the Cabinet, under the chairmanship of the Minister of Health, and that committee will report to the Cabinet. I can assure the House—and I think the appointment of that committee is direct evidence of it—that we take this question very seriously indeed and recognise its intense importance; but pending the examination of it by the special committee I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I do not make any further statement.
I come now to the main subject of this Debate, the question of anti-British propaganda from Italy. The House will not expect an earth-shaking declaration on this subject, because only two days ago the Government, in answer to a question, made, I should have thought, their attitude sufficiently clear. Indeed, there is,


in fact, no disagreement in any quarter of the House in regard to this propaganda. We all hate such organised propaganda from whatever country it comes, whether it be government-inspired, government-controlled or merely government-encouraged, We believe that it represents one of the very worst developments of the modern world.' Of course, there are, as in all things, gradations of badness. There is the form of propaganda in which a country boosts itself, as the American phrase has it. It says it is the best country in the world, that its people are the best in the world, and that its form of government is the best in the world. That form of propaganda does not always carry complete conviction in other countries, and indeed sometimes it tends to amuse people in other countries; but at the same time, I think it will be agreed that, on the whole, it is legitimate and fairly harmless.
There is, however, another form of propaganda which is far more pernicious, that form of propaganda in which a country tries, apparently deliberately, to detract from and to depreciate its neighbours. It seems to me that that form of propaganda is bad from every point of view. It is bad from the point of view of the country that does it, because the people of that country, if the propaganda is conducted through the public Press, get a completely distorted idea of the world situation. That is very dangerous for any people. It is bad also for the people of other countries if it is done over the radio, because they also get a distorted impression, although, of course, to a lesser degree, for they are able by other means to get a truer impression. But to my mind, the worst effect of it is on the relations between the country which attacks and the country which is attacked. There can be nothing that so embitters the relations between two countries as this constant stream of irritating propaganda. I believe that it must take a large share of the blame for the situation that exists in the world to-day. We in England have had considerable experience of propaganda of this description in the years following the War, not from one country but from many countries, and among them undoubtedly from the country about which the hon. and gallant Member has spoken, Italy. From time to time there has been clear evidence, both from the Italian Press and from the Near East and

other parts of the world, of propaganda apparently directed entirely against this country.
I do not want at this late hour to elaborate on that subject, especially as many examples have already been given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I would, however, emphasise that the British Government have never condoned this propaganda. We have always taken a very serious view of it, and have never said that we were prepared to acquiesce in it. On former occasions, when it has become bad, we have always made the strongest representations, and our experience has been that those representations have led to improvements. They have been, alas, temporary and not permanent improvements but the representations have for the time being led to an improvement. During the last three months there has been a recrudescence of propaganda and it is for that reason, as the House was told a few days ago, that the Foreign Secretary sent for the Italian Ambassador and told him that His Majesty's Government were well aware of this propaganda, adding that, unless it could be brought to an end, it would be impossible to create the atmosphere necessary for the prosecution of successful conversations designed to improve our mutual relations.
Following on that answer there was a supplementary question which my right hon. Friend answered. I think his answer to that supplementary question has given rise to a certain amount of misconception and perhaps I may take this opportunity of clearing it up. My right hon. Friend was asked, "Has this propaganda stopped" and he said "No." I think the impression was gained by numbers of hon. Members that he meant that the representations had entirely failed. He did not mean that. What he meant was that there was no evidence yet that the representations had taken effect and that was not really to be wondered at because the representations were only made recently and they had to be transmitted to Rome and considered there. In those circumstanes it would be premature to say that they have failed. On former occasions they have been, to a certain extent, effective and it is our hope and belief that the good sense of the Italian people will ensure that they are effective again. If they are not effective it is clear that sooner or later we must take further measures. We have taken certain measures but, as


I say, if they are not effective we must go further and take such other measures as we think necessary or proper. But I do not want to stress that aspect of the question to-day because we do not want to be compelled to take measures. We do not want strained relations between ourselves and any other country.
What we really want is a return to the confident friendship which existed always in olden times between ourselves and Italy. But I emphasise the fact that confident friendship requires mutual respect and mutual understanding and if this Debate, however short it may have been, serves to show to the Italian Government that opinion in all quarters not only in this House but in the country views this matter with concern; if it shows that it is not a matter, as I have seen suggested in the Press, of one Member of the Government or of the Government as a whole being concerned but that the whole people of the British Isles feel concerned about this, and if it shows that this concern has not been aroused from any natural antipathy to the Italian people but from a sincere desire that such conditions should be created as will allow of the restoration of our old relations with that country, then I believe that this Debate will have served a very useful purpose.

PRISONER, BARLINNIE GAOL, GLASGOW.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. McGovern: The issue which I desire to raise was the subject of a short discussion on the Motion for the Adjournment recently, but under the Rules of the House it was not possible then to deal with the case fully, either from my point of view or that of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Secretary of State on Tuesday said he would make a complete statement to-day in connection with the alleged beating of a prisoner named Francis Healy in the cells of Barlinnie prison, and his ultimate removal to a lunatic asylum. The right hon. Gentleman made his statement to-day, and I congratulate him on having brought to his aid every single indictment that he could bring against this prisoner, standing by those who have been alleged to have committed the offence of beating up, and finding not one redeeming feature in the evidence of the person who was beaten,

nor personally interviewing him to see whether or not he had a case.
I regard this case, not from the point of view of an individual who desires to attack any form of law and order in this country, because I was regretfully compelled to raise this issue, and so far as the prison administration at Barlinnie is concerned, until this indictment had taken place I had no cause to complain in any shape or form. Indeed, a few weeks before the incident took place, I had the opportunity of visiting this prison and going through the complete prison from one end to the other, and when I was asked to place my observations in the visitors' book I said, in one phrase, that I would be amazed and surprised to find that anything of an unjust character would occur in that prison. That was my mind in connection with the prison from what I had observed. I always attempt to speak of both individuals and institutions as I find them, and I did so on that occasion.
I raise this issue as being a matter of public importance, because I believe that the administration of the prison at Barlinnie, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and, indeed, every Member of this House have a duty to see that if prisoners are housed in prisons in this country for offences that they may have committed against law and order, they have a fair deal in those prisons and are not subject to being made the butt of the anger or antagonism of warders in any part of the prison. Therefore, whether injustices come from Barlinnie, Berlin, Rome, Valencia, or Moscow, I hope that I shall always be able to raise my voice against injustices as I feel and see them. When I raised the issue I did not ask the Secretary of State to accept completely the version that I placed before him. I simply asked that statements should be taken by an independent inquiry, that these statements should be made by both sides, and that after sworn testimony had been given, the right hon. Gentleman, in his capacity as Secretary of State, should weigh up this evidence and hold the balance equally, and, if he found that any injustice had been committed, that he should condemn it and, which is more important, that he should see that it was not possible for such an occurrence to happen in the future, so that both prisoners and their friends could rest assured that he, as custodian of law and


order in this country and in charge of the prison, would demand that prisoners should be given every opportunity of decent treatment while they were within the prison walls.
I was sent for myself by a young man who came from this family. A member of a Glasgow public body who happened to be connected with the prisoner asked him to come to me to see whether I would visit this prisoner in the asylum at Gartloch. On 10th September this man was guilty of what might be termed an offence, but as it had happened during a period of depression, one could have excused it and attempted to reason with the man. The man was in the prison. He had not been taking his food over a considerable period, and he was feeling depressed. That day he went to his cell after having failed to take what was provided for him as a mid-day meal. Feeling depressed, he started, on his own admission, to break up what limited furniture there was in the cell. I have not only visited cells, but I have been an inmate in cells in Glasgow, and I have had to complain in this House of the limited amount of furnishing there is in a cell. I was compelled to sit all night in one cell on a lavatory seat, because there was no other accommodation provided on which to rest, except a stone slab.
This man began to smash up the limited furniture there was in his cell. A number of warders came along. The prisoner said there were six, the Secretary of State said there were four, and to-day he has stated there were five. They came to the cell, and according to the prisoner, when they opened the door they immediately raised their batons. Ordinarily there would be a considerable number of prisoners in the hall, but on this occasion the warders took the precaution of locking up every prisoner who would have seen the incident. After having secured the men in the cells, they opened this man's door and raised their batons. Seeing that he was to have a beating, he retreated to the end of the cell and threw at the warder what is termed a "chamber pot." The attack then proceeded and blows were struck by the warders with their batons on the man's head, and large scalp wounds were inflicted. The man says that he fell on his knees and was practically in a state

of semi-consciousness at this stage. They proceeded to beat him up very badly.
If the man had been depressed, as he had been, according to the evidence and the statement the Secretary of State makes to-day, and had shown signs bordering on insanity, the warders ought not to have approached the cell as if they were going to administer a hiding. They should have attempted in some way to induce the man to be reasonable and not to attempt violence. The evidence from all sides is that no attempt was made to do that. There was simply a determination, according to the prisoner, to inflict a beating on him. He claims that he was very badly and violently beaten by all these officers. They then dragged him along the landing down to the padded cell. The door was closed and every vestige of clothing was taken off him. He was again beaten up and left in a bad condition. The man himself is the one who should know what condition he was in.
After that they proceeded to get the doctor. I want to put the medical man in the dock also for his part in the affair. He looks into the padded cell, he hears the tale of the warders, and he decides there and then that the man is insane. I say that no medical man can decide that a person is insane on such an examination and with the stories told by the warders. After securing an outside medical man to back up his case, he sent the man that same afternoon to Gartloch as being a lunatic. The man was examined there somewhere round about five o'clock on the same evening as he had received the beating. We have been told that the Governor of the prison visited the man in the cell and that the man expressed regret for his action. That is completely contradictory of my information, which is that the man did not make any statement of any kind, and, indeed, the Governor admits that he was not present when the alleged assault took place and only arrived on the scene later. He went to the cell and looked in. I myself acquainted the Governor later of my interview with the man and with the condition in which I found him, and I shall be letting out no secret when I say that he was rather disturbed, that he himself had been rather suspicious, and that he thanked me for having informed him about what had taken place.
The Secretary of State talked about the certificate of the doctor at the asylum. The doctor of the institution certified the man to have
two fresh gashes on the skull; bruising of both shoulders, the right with considerable swelling; bruising is very extensive; bad discolouration; bruising on the right thigh and left; deep discolouration and swollen; left hand swollen and discoloured.
The doctor told we when I visited the prisoner that the discolouration would become a great deal worse after a day or two. I cannot say the exact day when I saw the man, but it was a few days after the incident took place. I was shown the man in bed. I said to him "Look here, do not attempt to tell me anything that is not true, because the worst thing you can do to your case is to make any statement that is false and I want you to admit anything in which you were wrong." The man told me exactly what had happened. Then he showed me his body in the presence of the male attendants. I was shocked at the condition of the man's body.
I take it the Secretary of State is not attempting to deny the condition in which I found the man—that from his head to his heels he was black and blue and yellow, and scarcely any part of his body was free from swelling and discolouration. The first remark of the witness who was with me on seeing the man was "Good God, I did not think it was possible in this country for any man to suffer like that." It was a revolting sight. The man is 5 feet 2 inches in height. He is a bantam weight. He is a typical Glasgow corner boy. He was undoubtedly beaten up.
The Secretary of State, in his defence, reminds me largely of a man who was on the Glasgow Town Council. One man there is notorious. When the other fellow's case is very strong he sets up a dummy case of his own, proceeds to erect it and then to knock it down. The Secretary of State puts forward the plea that this man about whom I am raising this matter started with violence to attack the warders. That is not true.
This is again a case of the Abyssinians attacking the Italians. There is an old story that most of us know, told about Hitler's Germany. A lion had broken free from the Zoological Gardens and came into a café. The crowd in the café

rushed out of the doors, jumped out of the windows, and dived under the tables, but a young man rushed forward, looked the lion steadily in the eye, grappled with it and finally handed it over to the trainer, after a struggle. A journalist was so taken with the heroic act that he asked him his name and said that he would give him an advertisement in the newspapers. The young man said: "I am sorry, but you will never be able to publish anything about me." "Why"? asked the journalist. "Because I am a Jew." "That does not matter, answered the journalist. I will see that you get publicity." Next morning, when people looked at their Nazi newspapers, they saw the headline: "Cowardly Jew attacks a lion in a café." That story typifies the kind of attack which was made by this man of 5 feet 2 inches upon five or six warders in the prison cell at Barlinnie.
Not only that, but this individual to whom the complaint was made by the young man, found himself a few weeks later in the same prison for some offence, and during the time he was detained there he was challenged by those warders and threatened in the prison for having given the information to me. Regarding the man's condition, I have said here, although the Secretary of State for Scotland attempts to dispose of it to-day, that the medical officer stated to the Medical Officer of Health for Glasgow something of which I hope there will be no misunderstanding. I have stated here that the doctor said that the man had shown no signs of insanity from going into the institution for a period of 3½ months. I shall not attempt to retail something that I claim the doctor had told me. I was asked by the convenor of the Public Health Committee to see the man who is in charge of the Health Department in Glasgow, and who runs these institutions.
I went to see the medical report upon this man. I was told that Dr. McGregor, the Medical Officer of Health had asked Dr. Dryden about this man. The latter said that in his estimation the man was not insane, and Dr. McGregor's reply was: "If you thought he was not insane, why did you not discharge him?" The reply to that was: "Because he was sent in by two outside medical men who certified him as being insane. I have to accept him, and cannot discharge him for a reasonable time." I was told that


Statement of the medical officer in the institution when I was reading the report which I saw in the Glasgow Health Department.
How does the Minister suggest this man came by all those bruises and discolouration of the body? He was black and blue from head to foot. A man of five feet two inches stands in front of five warders, armed with truncheons. If that man were depressed and—I go further—even if there were something mentally wrong with him, does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the normal procedure and method of approach should be to go into the cell armed with batons and to proceed to beat the man up in the disgraceful manner that I allege he was beaten up, according to the evidence of the appearance of the man, which justifies it? I say that that would be the wrong approach.
The Secretary of State for Scotland is proceeding in this case by first of all putting forward the defence of those who are being accused. Suppose that I came to him and said, "Look here, your authorities in Glasgow have charged two men with burglary; I have been to them, and they deny that they committed a burglary; therefore you should accept their word as being a proper defence, and should withdraw all proceedings in connection with the case." There would be an outcry if something of that kind were suggested. The prison authorities have to defend their warders in the false name of discipline, and he says to them, "I want to hear your version of the case." The disgraceful thing, the contemptible thing, about his statement today, is this: He came here and said that he had interrogated almost every person but anyone who could be favourable to the prisoner. He never dreamed of going to the prisoner; he never dreamed of hearing his case. No matter whether he was going to accept it or not, he never went near him; he makes no statement that he has heard him.
Warders will naturally deny, as policemen deny, every act of assault that takes place. In 1931 I myself was kicked by policemen in the streets of Glasgow. My shirt was soaked with blood, and I carry to-day a wound 3½ inches long and I inch broad on my spine where I was kicked, without ever attempting to put up a struggle against arrest. I saw the policemen go into the witness-box and publicly

perjure themselves on every iota of detail in connection with those incidents. I say here that warders have a right to be defended if they are innocent, and if there were six prisoners attacking one warder, I hope my sympathy would be with the warder if he was attacked by six brutal individuals who were armed against him. But in this case five or six warders, in my judgment, carried out a brutal assault on this man. I know cases where the Secretary of State and I would have differences of opinion, both political and personal, but I am so convinced of the justice of this case, and of the fact that the man had a bad beating up, that I demand and expect from him that something else should have been done than what has been done to-day.
He states, late in the day, after it came out from evidence which I myself supplied and which he was compelled to investigate in order to get an answer from the prison authorities—there was no word of it at the beginning—that a man who was a prisoner in the prison said that a parade of 12 to 15 people complained of the assault on this man Healy. He comes out to-day with the statement that 12 men went and made representations regarding this incident. Why did he not tell us of that at the outset? Why did he not tell us that he had had representations from 12 men who complained of the treatment of this man? He says that they did not see the incident. Many a man has not seen an incident, but the circumstantial evidence in the case is very important.
They heard the cries of distress of the man who was being beaten up. One man says he will never forget the cries of the man until his dying day, that it made him feel that a gangster was a gentleman compared to these people. I was told that one man actually saw at least part of it, if not all of it, through his spy-hole at the prison. I can quite understand the reluctance of prisoners to come forward and give evidence against warders of this type during the time they are doing sentences in the prison, particularly when sometimes they may go back into the self-same prison. I say that, from the evidence I have had in the past, I could never credit the prison governor himself being a party to a policy of that kind; I should never think that the head warder was a party to a policy of that kind; I know they were not present, and did not know what took place
But in connection with this question I say that the Minister, from beginning to end, in my estimation, has failed to hold justice between the warders and the prisoners. He has gone to every length to get a case against the prisoner and to show that the warders did not commit the offence, but he has not gone to any length to find out whether the man was violently assaulted or not. He deals with the point that a pot was thrown at the warder and that the warder was hit on the bridge of the nose. My information again is of an inside character, that in this House I regret I cannot divulge. My information is that this warder was not injured in more than the slightest superficial way, in a way that any person might be hurt by rubbing his hand against a wall. I believe that this man having been beaten up the warders immediately built up their story with the desire that this man should be transferred to the institution at the earliest possible moment so that they might get rid of him and hide the facts of this brutal treatment. I say to the Minister that I saw the man. He cannot get over that fact. I saw his body, a revolting spectacle. If the Minister takes pride in the fact that he stands behind warders who are guilty of hideous, criminal offences of that kind, then his period of office is going to be disgraced by the defence of that brutality.
I feel bound to raise the issue in this House and I raise it with all the force that I can command. I say that the obvious duty of the Minister was to have heard every side of the case and not to have heard simply the Prison Commissioners and the Governor and the warders who are all bound up in this system of officialdom and discipline. He should have held an independent inquiry, both medical and judicial, by men who could have gone into the prison and have asked for statements from every person who claimed any knowledge of the affair. Those people should have got possession of the facts and sent in a report to him, instead of his taking sides against the prisoner and in favour of those who were accused of this offence. Since he has taken a position against the prisoner, and stands behind the warders who made a brutal attack on him, I do not expect that I shall get any satisfaction in the form of an inquiry, but if I get nothing else out of this I hope I have got sufficient

publicity to prevent a repetition of these acts. If that is so, I shall have accomplished a good day's work, because I think it is disgraceful that we should have the feeling that men who go into prison may at any moment be victims of such brutality.
I myself did not want to raise the issue. I advised the boy's parents and the boy against raising it. I said that although I was convinced of the justice of their case, I was certain that the boy's previous record would be raised against him in the attempt on the part of the authorities to defend their action. Not only that, but I thought the lad would be better off in the security of the institution, where he would be better treated than if he were sent back to a hostile environment. I say that inquiry was needed, and that a searching inquiry should have taken place. If that inquiry had done nothing else it would have brought out the full facts and would have gone some way to show that our prison system was above reproach, that a man sent to prison would receive justice inside the prison, and that the Secretary of State could be depended upon to hold the balance of justice evenly between warders and prisoners.

4.44 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): The hon. Member has spoken at some length and with a certain degree of heat, for which I think he might be excused if the case were as he represents it, because this is the sort of case in which the House takes the deepest interest. I am glad that it has been raised on more than one occasion. I only wish more time had been available on the occasions when it has been raised. But the hon. Member's actions are inconsistent with the account that he gives of the case. If the incident is as he has depicted it, it is a gross and scandalous miscarriage of justice. Why, then, did six weeks elapse between the time when the hon. Member was made aware of it, and the time when he raised it here in the House? I think we are entitled to put that point to him.

Mr. McGovern: I think I have answered that.

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member says he thought it inadvisable to raise it, and that the man was better off in the asylum, which surely disposes of the suggestion


that he was hurried out by warders to get him out of the way. But if this was a gross miscarriage of justice, none of these things should have stood in the way of his raising it at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. McGovern: Does the Minister suggest that, when the parents of the boy approached me and I gave them my advice, and said that I did not want to raise all this publicity without their consent, and then, after a period of delay, they asked me to raise the matter, I was a completely free agent?

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member has repeated the point I am making, that he counselled against this case being raised in public. That, surely, is a circumstance that we are bound to take into account. The incident took place on 10th September. On 16th September—I can give him the date—the hon. Member visited the asylum. The first time that he raised the matter at all was in a question which was answered on 23rd November, which would be put down on 20th November or thereabouts. The House had been sitting since 26th October. It certainly suggests that the question was not of the unmistakably gross type that the hon. Member declares it to be, if he waited from 16th September to about 20th November before putting down a question, and, on his own statement, counselled the parents against, raising the case at all.

Mr. McGovern: The case was prejudged.

Mr. Elliot: I do not think the hon. Member has any right to say that. The only person who has not raised the issue from start to finish in this is the prisoner himself. There has been no complaint from Francis Healy.

Mr. McGovern: Yes, through me.

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member says through him, but that waited until 20th November. There was no complaint to the Governor of the prison. The hon. Member says the Governor was prejudiced. There was no complaint forwarded through the superintendent of the asylum. The man has been since 10th September in the asylum, outside the influence of the Governor or the warders or anybody who might be prejudiced. Surely, we have to take that into account

when the hon. Member suggests that it is through fear of the warders that he made no complaint. He has not been in the custody of a warder since 10th September.

Mr. McGovern: The right hon. Gentleman has no right to make false accusations. I did not say that he did not make a complaint because of fear of a warder. I said that he was hurried out after the assault, and that since then he has been in my care and the care of his family. I never mentioned fear of warders.

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member makes false accusations, but I do not wish to bandy words with him on that point. He said that he and other persons have refused to make accusations for fear of the warders, and he said that Healy had been hurried out. [Interruption.] I dealt with that point at Question Time, and I will deal with it again. The hon. Member, after making the statement that the man was attacked, stated that the man struck the first blow. [Interruption.] The hon. Member is within the recollection of the House. He said that the warders came into the cell and the first thing that happened was that a crockery chamber pot was hurled at them by the prisoner Francis Healy.

Mr. McGovern: When the warders made a rush at him, Healy, in order to stave off attack, threw the pot.

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member admits that. He admits in the hearing of the House that the first person to strike a blow was Francis Healy. [Interruption.] I am saying that he struck the first blow. If it comes to untruths, I can quote as many untruths of the hon. Member. I have not interrupted him, and I beg of him not to interrupt me. I gave the case at Question Time, and I cannot go over that case again. Nobody denies that the prisoner began to make a disturbance in his cell, that the warders came in, that the prisoner hurled the chamber pot at the warders, and nobody denies that there was a violent struggle in which both a warder and the prisoner were injured. These are the facts of the case, and they have been given in this House.

Sir Hugh Seely: Had the warders drawn their batons?

Mr. Elliot: I am not discussing whether they had their batons drawn or not.

Sir H. Seely: That is important.

Mr. McGovern: That is part of the complaint.

Mr. Jagger: We learn that the hon. Member is a liar, and that the man threw the chamber pot.

Mr. Elliot: It is extremely difficult to carry out an inquiry into a serious case like this if these reckless statements are made across the Floor of the House. I ask the hon. Member to have some sense of responsibility.

Mr. Montague: Why not have an inquiry?

Mr. Elliot: I will come to that in a moment. The hon. Member asks for an inquiry. If an administrative inquiry were held in prison, it would not be an inquiry on oath, and every witness would be bound to be cautioned and told that he need not make a statement which would incriminate him. There is one method by which it could have taken place, and ought to have taken place if the facts were as stated, and that is by the prosecution by the procurator-fiscal of the warders for assault. The Lord Advocate did in fact go into the matter and decided that such a prosecution could not take place.

Mr. Cassells: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not the fact that in this particular case batons actually were drawn, and surely, that is most material to this question?

Mr. Elliot: It seems to me that it is not at all material to the question. Of course, batons were drawn. It has been stated time and time again.

Sir H. Seely: When?

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member cannot have listened to the extremely long statements given repeatedly in reply to questions, namely, that the prisoner was struck twice on the head with a baton, which inflicted scalp wounds'. Nobody denies that that was so.

Mr. Cassells: When was that?

Mr. Elliot: It is impossible, if hon. Members cut down the time to this extent, for me to go into this statement at length. No one denies that that took place. When it took place has been given at length in statements in the House. I was dealing very briefly with the suggestion of the

hon. Member that an inquiry might be held, and I was pointing out that the only way in which sworn testimony could be given was at a trial of the warders for assault. If the warders were guilty of the things suggested by the hon. Member, then there is a simple process of law by means of which the warders could be punished. They would be guilty of assault in such circumstances and would be subject to trial, and if they were proved guilty at the trial then they could be punished. But the hon. Member knows that in those circumstances, with a prosecution hanging over them, they could not be compelled to give evidence on oath at such an inquiry as he suggests.
The hon. Member further suggested that the doctor just looked into the cell, that he heard the warders, and that he decided the man was insane, after calling in an outside medical man. Therefore, the hon. Member admits that there was an examination by two medical men. It was not simply a case of the medical officer just looking into the cell. The man was carefully examined.
The hon. Member says that the Governor had declared that it was rather a suspicious case. The statement which has been made about the Governor is denied by the Governor. The hon. Member also states that the medical officer had told the medical officer of health for Glasgow that the man was not insane. I am not relying on hearsay statements of what one medical man is supposed to have said to another medical man. I summoned here the Governor, the Secretary of the Prisons Department and the superintendent of the asylum, who says that not only was the man insane then but that he is not a sane man now.

Mr. McGovern: Mr. McGovern indicated dissent.

Mr. Elliot: It is no use the hon. Member shaking his head. This question has been raised not only for the benefit of the hon. Member but for the benefit and information of the House. Therefore, I secured a personal interview with the medical man in whose professional charge Healy is now. I did not rely on any hearsay evidence, but I interviewed the medical officer now responsible, and he says that he cannot release the man on probation now. That is against the other suggestion made by the hon. Member as to what was said by one medical man to another. We are not discussing hearsay


now, but we are discussing whether or not the man ought to be in the asylum. The medical officer in whose charge he is now, states that he is a case which cannot be released but ought to be, for medical reasons, where he is now.
The last point made by the hon. Member was that I had not gone to Francis Healy himself. I did not go to any of the people engaged in the struggle. I did not go to the warders or to Healy himself. If I had interviewed Healy I should have had to interview the warders. I interviewed the people who were responsible, and I had to satisfy myself by inquiries from them. I am satisfied that after this lapse of time no further inquiry could bring out the relevant facts which the hon. Member desires. Certainly an inquiry with the warders on the one side and Healy on the other could not bring out those facts. The hon. Member himself delayed bringing this matter forward until the evidence of the bruises had completely disappeared.

Mr. McGovern: No. There was the doctor's certificate.

Mr. Elliot: Nobody denies that there were bruises, but the point was whether they were bruises which were inconsistent with the statement that has been made by the warders, and I have the doctor's statement that the bruises were not inconsistent. I have formed my own opinion, and I have sought evidence with regard to the bruises which disappeared many weeks before the hon. Member brought this case to the House. In such cases we have, first, to inquire whether injustice has been done, and then we have to inquire whether the procedure can be improved. I have given my reasons for thinking that justice was done, and I have given the House particulars of improvements in procedure by which I hope to avoid anything of the kind occurring again.

It being Five of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 22nd December, till Tuesday, 1st February, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.